Does the Argument Behind Anaheim’s Luxury Hotel Subsidy Plan Hold Water?

A boutique hotel in Anaheim, where the city council approved another tax subsidy for builders of luxury hotels. (Photo credit:

Earlier this month, in the latest iteration of hotel subsidies in Anaheim, the City Council majority approved a policy that calls for the city to kick back 70 percent of room-tax revenue to developers of luxury hotels based on the premise that high-end hotels generate more tax revenue than those in lower tiers.

But not everyone buys this argument, including Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait and a hotel financing expert.

Tait was the first to dispute the reasoning, saying it comes down to simple arithmetic. When the Council approved the policy at its June 16th meeting, the mayor pointed out that while the city currently receives, on average, $15.33 in revenue per room night from a three-diamond hotel; under the subsidy policy, the city would only get $4.25 per room night from a four-diamond hotel.

“Why would we do this?” Tait said.

City staff — and a city-hired consultant — say Tait’s basic math problem fails to take into account a more complex reality. Their reasoning goes like this:

A four-diamond hotel is constructed with steel frames and can therefore hold many more rooms than a three-diamond. The additional rooms and the higher rates mean a larger room-tax base. Also, the presence of a luxury hotel allows surrounding hotels to hike their rates, generating even more room-tax revenue.

Throw in the larger property tax and sales tax returns that come with a nicer hotel, and you’ve got a better deal for the city, even when it only keeps 10 percent of the room-tax.

As living proof of their argument, subsidy proponents point to the JW Marriott at the L.A. Live entertainment district in downtown Los Angeles, which benefits from a tax subsidy deal that allows the developer to keep up to $270 million in room-tax revenues through 2035.

The opening of JW Marriott in 2010 increased the average daily rate for hotels in the area, according to Bruce Baltin, senior vice president at PKF Consulting, which the city hired to analyze its hotel tax subsidy policies.

Baltin claims a database kept by PKF Consulting shows that in the top-tier of hotels, which is where the JW Marriott competes, each individual hotel’s room rate increased sharply. However, he wouldn’t share the hotel-by-hotel figures, saying that doing so would violate the hotels’ confidentiality in providing their numbers.

Yet Alan Reay, president of Irvine-based Atlas Hospitality Group, which is in the business of hotel financing, says there are some basic flaws with this logic.

For one, Reay said, it’s something of an apples-to-oranges comparison because the tax subsidy was awarded to build the JW Marriott due to a shortage of hotels near the city’s convention center, not just to attract high-end guests, which is Anaheim’s approach.

Furthermore, revenue-per-room increased across Los Angeles County between 2010 and 2011, not just in downtown LA., Reay said. Also, the average rate in the downtown LA area increased because the rate at the 878-room JW Marriott’s is much higher than the surrounding hotels.

Reay likened it to purchasing a Bentley car when you already own a Mini-Cooper. When you average the value between the two cars, of course that’s a higher number. But it doesn’t mean the value of your Mini-Cooper increased.

“I just don’t see one hotel making that big of an impact,” Reay said, adding that too many other factors come into play to determine whether a single hotel could have the effect the city is looking for.

Baltin acknowledges that room rates increased across the board. But what makes the addition of the JW Marriott unique is that competitor hotels didn’t reduce their rates to compete, which is usually what happens when a large new luxury hotel opens up, he said.

“Normally, when a thousand-room hotel opens in a market like downtown LA, in reaction the other hotels will have to lower their rates in competition,” Baltin said.

That counterintuitive trend shows that the JW Marriott’s opening had a positive effect, according to Baltin.

Another question raised by subsidy opponents is whether a subsidy is even needed to spur luxury hotel development.

The current consensus among financing experts is that the hotel market, while typically the last to recover after an economic downturn, is at or nearing its peak. If a luxury hotel can’t secure financing in this market, that’s probably because Anaheim is the wrong location for it and the well-heeled guests will still choose a luxury hotel near the beach over Anaheim, Reay said.

Sean Gulian, real estate analyst at the Pittsburgh-based capital markets firm HFF, Inc., said the hotel industry is still on a “steep climb” but acknowledged that the market has improved. He doesn’t think a luxury hotel could be financed and built in Anaheim without subsidies yet, but that in the “near future” that will probably change.

“I think that the market will continue to climb so in the near future it probably won’t be” necessary to secure tax subsidies for a luxury hotel, Gulian said. “For the amount of progress hotels have made thus far, it’s too early to say.”

Baltin argues that the demand for a luxury hotel does exist. The problem for Anaheim is that it make more financial sense for a developer to build a lower-tier hotel. That’s where the subsidy comes into play.

“The demand is there for the hotels, Baltin said. “But by the same token, the economics of building the hotels without the subsidy are less desirable than building a self service or extended stay hotel.”

Please contact Adam Elmahrek directly at and follow him on Twitter: @adamelmahrek

  • Pingback: Does the Argument Behind Anaheim's Luxury Hotel Subsidy Plan Hold Water? – VoiceofOC | Mmodation's Weblog()

  • tedamudgett

    hi every one to inform the public on 5/1/2015 I had 2 fullerton police officers that tried to dump a homeless person on my property located at 1010 s highland ave fullerton ca 92832 it’s a group home for social security people and that my landlord refuse this person and this person for 9 monthes was sitting at a bench in front of the fullerton city hall building for a long time all so hang out at the fullerton police departments benches lt rudinsil of the fullerton police department was in charge at that time this goes to show that the fullerton police department is scandalious very shady too ok thanks to every one who reads this message thanks so much

  • Smeagel4T

    So let’s see… give Disneyland kickbacks because of all the new business revenue it’ll attract. Then slash all the new business revenue in order to attract business. Either Disneyland justifies its kickbacks by actually attracting new business revenue, or it doesn’t and other kickbacks are necessary to attract new businesses. Which is it?

  • RyanCantor

    Why 70%? Why not 80% Why not 100%?

    70% mirrors the justification to support the developer of the ill-conceived Gardenwalk hotels. The justification claimed 70% was necessary to support the profit margin necessary to obtain a loan to construct the hotel.

    The loan’s interest rate was DOUBLE the rate given to prime commercial real estate developers at the time. 8% vs. 4%. At 4%, the ToT kick back isn’t necessary.

    So, two years later, Anaheim has a hotel subsidy plan implemented city wide relying upon an economic study conducted three years ago that only concluded a subsidy was necessary in the first place because of a sub-prime loan.

    All kinds of #stupid.

    • Smeagel4T

      I was wondering why it wasn’t 150%. Why stop the graft and corruption at only slicing taxes. Why not sweeten the deal by making Anaheim residents pay the hoteliers.

      • Philmore

        I only hope the City Staff and Council majority can recognize that as sarcasm, or else we might see it on the next Agenda!

        • Smeagel4T

          Politicians recognize sarcasm? I fear that’s a sophistication level beyond what I’m willing to concede to most politicians.

  • David Zenger

    “A four-diamond hotel is constructed with steel frames and can therefore
    hold many more rooms than a three-diamond.”

    To whomever argued this: thanks for the singularly stupidest thing I have read in a long time.

    • Cynthia Ward

      It’s worse than stupid. The Minimum room number to get the subsidy is 250 rooms, the same as the wood frame 3 star hotels they just dismissed claiming the benefits of steel frame bigger hotels. When Tait asked, John Woodhead said some of the boutique hotels were running these smaller hotels and they wanted to get into that market as well. So 10% of 250 rooms at a slightly higher room rate is better than 80% of 250 rooms at a slightly lower room rate HOW? Either someone is radically incompetent, or fraud is being committed against taxpayers. take your pick but I want neither of them working with my tax money any more.