This is one more example of control.
The city eliminated the Chamber of Commerce middleman, and moved the CVB to a city department to consolidate direct control over $1.5 million a year in revenue.The city eliminated Friends of Victoria Baseball and moved Riverside Park to direct control, to take credit for waht has already happening.The city re-activated some obscure board to issue tax free bonds for a new commercial concen for control over who comes to town so they can say they did it. The city controls the Sales Tax Development Board (which was 'sold' as an infrastructure improvement method) and deticates $100,000 for lobbying & public education for their proposed new college campus.In today's paper the city environmental department is organizing a 'scavenger hunt' for some fashionable 'green' agenda.
If the city government doesn't organize it ... it didn't happen.If the city government doesn't sell you the land and give you a tax break for your building ... you're probably never going to make it here.If the city government doesn't have its thumbprint on it ... it is not going to happen.And, the Advocate is right in there promoting this agenda.
This reader's opinion (which is probably in the minority): the city should fix the infrastructure and catch the lawbreakers in the most economical way possible. That is why we pay taxes. That is the only thing we want from city government.
"Dissension", as posted here (www.goo.gl/oSrVQ):
No matter how "successful" they claim this event to be, the core principles driving it and the Boots campaign are economically & intellectually flawed. We're told Victorians don't pay the HOT, but any objective observer or business owner could tell you the cost of the tax gets passed on to us when out-of-town businesses serving us stay in our hotels. On any given day, you'll find many (marked/unmarked) company vehicles in our hotel parking lots. I know first-hand how travel expenses get passed onto customers.
Aside from the added cost to businesses, it's also an added cost to confused travelers who're trying to figure out why they "brought their boots" or are here despite the intelligence-insulting campaign enjoying what we actually have to offer. Effectively, we're penalizing people for visiting our town. Period. Nearly everything I've ever read or have been told about marketing boils down to differentiation. "Bring Your Boots" certainly didn't do that. If fact, it did the opposite. I think the ultimate differentiation would be to not collect the tax and broadcast that fact. The HOT statute (Sec. 351.002.a) says "a municipality by ordinance MAY impose" the HOT, but it's not required. Since we're within 2 hours of endless recreational options, why not send the message that we're different in that we don't want to tax those who're lodging in our town. Aren't we trying to get the proverbial foot in the door of the curious traveler's vacation itinerary?
The mentality that we must impose this tax falls in line with our govt's mentality that we must pursue every State/Federal grant, which usually end up increasing yearly maintenance costs. I think if you simply asked Victorians, "Should we impose every tax allowable by law and consume every grant available?", most would say "HELL NO".
Schemes like BootFest will usually go over well because the average citizen can't resist "free" stuff and usually won't question the real costs of or who pays for "free" events. The citizenry has always liked its "games". Hey, here's a potential slogan that'll bring 'em in droves: "Victoria: The Little Rome of Texas". Come watch "Little Rome" fall in slow motion under the weight of our leaders' cumbersome egos, arbitrary actions, and insatiable appetites.
Success should NOT be measured by how happy it made the masses or the benefiting business owners; It should first be gauged by how moral/ethical it is to tax one group of people to throw a party for another group. In this regard, BootFest was a major FAILURE.
This was an idea hatched from the Macaroni Festival attempted a few years ago under the watch of Phyllis Hunt and had to be cancelled due to rain.
If I recall she did not need that kind of money for that event.
YE of little faith...how dare you question the wisdom of the council... I strongly believe their conclusion Boot Fest was a huge success due to the facts: Council basks in success of Boot fest...Friday saw 4,000 participants, and on Saturday, the total soared to 9,000. Total crowd estimate for the two days was 20,000 to 23,000...Festival was success through year-plus planning...A revamped Convention and Visitors Bureau was asking $750,000 in hotel-motel tax to let people know about Victoria and to draw tourists to the city. The request included $423,900 for general advertising alone...(The campaign kicked off with the $73,340 yearlong ad contract with Texas Monthly, Bise said, adding that other magazines, such as Texas Highways and others, will also join the mix)All in all over 1.5 million (that we know of) was given to the Convention and Visitors Bureau to promote Victoria...$1.4MM spent promoting Victoria as Boot CentralAND: " ... We want the program to have a fresh start under the city and their management team," according to release. "We believe that this will allow the city to take existing plans and further enhance them for maximum benefit. We wish Ms. Bise the best of luck in her future endeavors.AND... then the Council dismisses...without a trace...Ms Bise so they can " basks in success of Boot fest"Victoria tourism bureau planners and supporters say they won't know for a year or two whether its ad campaign is a success. (The Council has done this in less than a week)So, please dismiss the notion the Boot Fest was not a "huge" success and accept the fact it was.Do you think the Council would try and hoodwink us loyal taxpayers to thinking otherwise....
Getsmart- your pleas are falling on deaf ears. That would actually take time and effort to do instead of just sitting behind a desk and writing.