DC wants to raise hotel taxes to increase tourism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LA has close proximity to many known beaches, high end places that people want to experience, tours of homes if the rich and famous, nearby cities to visit like San Diego or Santa Barbara. Plus great weather.

NYC has the big name, shopping, interesting nightlife and amazing food.

DC has… free museums, that draws a certain type of tourist but not large masses, government buildings- the main draw to DC. Also draws a certain type of tourist but not masses.

If I didn’t live here, I’d visit DC once for a few days, mostly for the government buildings. Once you’ve seen them, you’ve seen them.

I go to NYC multiple times per year and LA once a year and Miami at least once a year. DC is a great city but not on tourism par with other big cities.

Exactly. Maybe you visit DC once for just a long weekend, perhaps around the 4th of July, when your kids are 10 or something like that. If they make it as expensive as LA or New York then I’m not sure of the value. The actual cool stuff that forms great memories, like the elevator to the top of of the Washington Monument or a White House tour are now so difficult that they are basically impossible to do. You can see a space shuttle in LA. You can see much better art in both LA and New York. You can see a better natural history museum in New York. The only unique DC things generally open to the public are the Capitol Building, Library of Congress and Arlington Cemetery and the only essential visit out of those three is the cemetery and it’s not even in DC proper. What’s the unique value proposition again?

DP. You are acting like DC has never had a tourism industry before and is trying to build one from scratch. DC has had a thriving tourism industry in the past that it now needs to re-vitalize post-covid. Many cities are facing this.

What you don’t seem to understand is that other cities have vibrant tourism industries too. DC should not be comparing itself to NYC, LA or Miami like they are peers. They definitely are not. DC is a different value proposition and the price increases as a result of this tax will end up hurting tourism in the end.

Eh, not really. People will still come here to see the monuments, do the museums, etc. You can't replicate that at the beach.
Companies will still send brigades of executives here because this is where budgets are decided and policy gets made. Law enforcement and military travel here all the time for work purposes.

The federal government itself spends a lot on DC hotels.

Depends on your definition of here. Here could be Crystal City, VA.

+1 Trip Advisor reviews suggest Crystal City and give other tips for where to stay/not stay for safety

You'd have to take Metro, and it's not really that cheap if you want to do stuff in the city most of the time and have ability to come to your room midday. You are likely going to be forced to leave and only come back at the end of the day to avoid wasting time and money.

But this is exactly what groups have been doing for decades. Clearly staying in Crystal City is worth it to them.

I think this is about people who would stay in DC for the experience of being in DC or wanting to have access to their rooms and being close by. Are they likely to not worry about extra cost or would they shun DC hotels altogether for some inconvenience of commute and less access?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty straightforward. How much does anyone pay attention to these tax rates when planning their vacation anyway? And, as the article notes, the proposed rates are similar to other large cities. The money just goes into promoting more tourism.

Honestly, DC has to work extra hard to undo the stink of the Trump years.

People do pay attention to the overall cost. They are benchmarking themselves against NYC and LA. But DC is not NYC or LA. If it’s just as expensive to stay in DC as NYC or LA it won’t be hard for people to decide where they would prefer to visit.

Comparing NYC/LA/DC is like comparing oranges/apples and cherries. Each city has its unique attractions and range of prices, but overall, DC is cheaper than the other two, and also has less variety of stuff to do or reasons to come here.

Why don’t you go read the article champ. The tax increase is stated to be reasonable because it would then align DC prices with other cities. The tax will make DC more expensive and take away this value proposition of being a cheaper place to travel.

People can only go one place at a time and I presume that other families are like mine and compare prices. If going to DC is just as expensive as going to one of these other places then people might reconsider. I know that I would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose visitors could stay in Virginia and then use the free Metro to visit sites around DC.

Metro is free?

That's another DC proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you all feel better, SF downtown and touristy areas are in even sadder shape, there were not many people even with the Christmas shopping season in full swing in SF's usually busy shopping areas. Market St looks terrible from what I remember years ago even in front of the Westfield luxury mall. Union sq was deserted during the week day, pretty sad. It used to be full when I worked there, because tons of workers were commuting DT, there were people walking down the streets during the weekday. In comparison, DC monuments still attract people, even local crowds.

They need to raise taxes on the remaining businesses so they afford to advertise the rundown areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LA has close proximity to many known beaches, high end places that people want to experience, tours of homes if the rich and famous, nearby cities to visit like San Diego or Santa Barbara. Plus great weather.

NYC has the big name, shopping, interesting nightlife and amazing food.

DC has… free museums, that draws a certain type of tourist but not large masses, government buildings- the main draw to DC. Also draws a certain type of tourist but not masses.

If I didn’t live here, I’d visit DC once for a few days, mostly for the government buildings. Once you’ve seen them, you’ve seen them.

I go to NYC multiple times per year and LA once a year and Miami at least once a year. DC is a great city but not on tourism par with other big cities.

Exactly. Maybe you visit DC once for just a long weekend, perhaps around the 4th of July, when your kids are 10 or something like that. If they make it as expensive as LA or New York then I’m not sure of the value. The actual cool stuff that forms great memories, like the elevator to the top of of the Washington Monument or a White House tour are now so difficult that they are basically impossible to do. You can see a space shuttle in LA. You can see much better art in both LA and New York. You can see a better natural history museum in New York. The only unique DC things generally open to the public are the Capitol Building, Library of Congress and Arlington Cemetery and the only essential visit out of those three is the cemetery and it’s not even in DC proper. What’s the unique value proposition again?

DP. You are acting like DC has never had a tourism industry before and is trying to build one from scratch. DC has had a thriving tourism industry in the past that it now needs to re-vitalize post-covid. Many cities are facing this.

What you don’t seem to understand is that other cities have vibrant tourism industries too. DC should not be comparing itself to NYC, LA or Miami like they are peers. They definitely are not. DC is a different value proposition and the price increases as a result of this tax will end up hurting tourism in the end.

Eh, not really. People will still come here to see the monuments, do the museums, etc. You can't replicate that at the beach.
Companies will still send brigades of executives here because this is where budgets are decided and policy gets made. Law enforcement and military travel here all the time for work purposes.

The federal government itself spends a lot on DC hotels.

Depends on your definition of here. Here could be Crystal City, VA.

+1 Trip Advisor reviews suggest Crystal City and give other tips for where to stay/not stay for safety

You'd have to take Metro, and it's not really that cheap if you want to do stuff in the city most of the time and have ability to come to your room midday. You are likely going to be forced to leave and only come back at the end of the day to avoid wasting time and money.

But this is exactly what groups have been doing for decades. Clearly staying in Crystal City is worth it to them.

Even farther out. Lots of groups stay near Dulles. It’s cheaper to rent out half a hotel there and pay for a private bus than house and feed them all in DC. Now with the metro to there, it’s even more likely.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like Destination DC wants more money and power. The "other cities are doing it, we have to keep up!" is classic fake motivation.

Look for them to want to spend more on the convention center soon, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LA has close proximity to many known beaches, high end places that people want to experience, tours of homes if the rich and famous, nearby cities to visit like San Diego or Santa Barbara. Plus great weather.

NYC has the big name, shopping, interesting nightlife and amazing food.

DC has… free museums, that draws a certain type of tourist but not large masses, government buildings- the main draw to DC. Also draws a certain type of tourist but not masses.

If I didn’t live here, I’d visit DC once for a few days, mostly for the government buildings. Once you’ve seen them, you’ve seen them.

I go to NYC multiple times per year and LA once a year and Miami at least once a year. DC is a great city but not on tourism par with other big cities.

Exactly. Maybe you visit DC once for just a long weekend, perhaps around the 4th of July, when your kids are 10 or something like that. If they make it as expensive as LA or New York then I’m not sure of the value. The actual cool stuff that forms great memories, like the elevator to the top of of the Washington Monument or a White House tour are now so difficult that they are basically impossible to do. You can see a space shuttle in LA. You can see much better art in both LA and New York. You can see a better natural history museum in New York. The only unique DC things generally open to the public are the Capitol Building, Library of Congress and Arlington Cemetery and the only essential visit out of those three is the cemetery and it’s not even in DC proper. What’s the unique value proposition again?

DP. You are acting like DC has never had a tourism industry before and is trying to build one from scratch. DC has had a thriving tourism industry in the past that it now needs to re-vitalize post-covid. Many cities are facing this.

What you don’t seem to understand is that other cities have vibrant tourism industries too. DC should not be comparing itself to NYC, LA or Miami like they are peers. They definitely are not. DC is a different value proposition and the price increases as a result of this tax will end up hurting tourism in the end.

Eh, not really. People will still come here to see the monuments, do the museums, etc. You can't replicate that at the beach.
Companies will still send brigades of executives here because this is where budgets are decided and policy gets made. Law enforcement and military travel here all the time for work purposes.

The federal government itself spends a lot on DC hotels.

Depends on your definition of here. Here could be Crystal City, VA.

+1 Trip Advisor reviews suggest Crystal City and give other tips for where to stay/not stay for safety

You'd have to take Metro, and it's not really that cheap if you want to do stuff in the city most of the time and have ability to come to your room midday. You are likely going to be forced to leave and only come back at the end of the day to avoid wasting time and money.

But this is exactly what groups have been doing for decades. Clearly staying in Crystal City is worth it to them.

Even farther out. Lots of groups stay near Dulles. It’s cheaper to rent out half a hotel there and pay for a private bus than house and feed them all in DC. Now with the metro to there, it’s even more likely.

Totally likely, if you don't mind spending most of your vacation time traveling back and forth to DC on the Metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you all feel better, SF downtown and touristy areas are in even sadder shape, there were not many people even with the Christmas shopping season in full swing in SF's usually busy shopping areas. Market St looks terrible from what I remember years ago even in front of the Westfield luxury mall. Union sq was deserted during the week day, pretty sad. It used to be full when I worked there, because tons of workers were commuting DT, there were people walking down the streets during the weekday. In comparison, DC monuments still attract people, even local crowds.

I visited SF pre-pandemic and it was sad then. The homeless situation just makes the place unpleasant. No one wants a man pissing on the wall ten feet away while waiting to go have breakfast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty straightforward. How much does anyone pay attention to these tax rates when planning their vacation anyway? And, as the article notes, the proposed rates are similar to other large cities. The money just goes into promoting more tourism.

Honestly, DC has to work extra hard to undo the stink of the Trump years.

People do pay attention to the overall cost. They are benchmarking themselves against NYC and LA. But DC is not NYC or LA. If it’s just as expensive to stay in DC as NYC or LA it won’t be hard for people to decide where they would prefer to visit.

Comparing NYC/LA/DC is like comparing oranges/apples and cherries. Each city has its unique attractions and range of prices, but overall, DC is cheaper than the other two, and also has less variety of stuff to do or reasons to come here.

Why don’t you go read the article champ. The tax increase is stated to be reasonable because it would then align DC prices with other cities. The tax will make DC more expensive and take away this value proposition of being a cheaper place to travel.

People can only go one place at a time and I presume that other families are like mine and compare prices. If going to DC is just as expensive as going to one of these other places then people might reconsider. I know that I would.

If you would then you obviously don't visit these cities for specific amenities or features they have. Someone wanting to visit memorials and see the white house cannot do this in LA or NYC. Someone wanting to see Hollywood and CA coast isn't going to find it in DC no matter how cheap it is. And if you have never been in NYC and want to see it, a trip to an "alternative" city won't satisfy you. People who want to visit DC plan it because of specific things they want to see and do, not because it is a cheaper alternative to visiting Manhattan. Apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it makes you all feel better, SF downtown and touristy areas are in even sadder shape, there were not many people even with the Christmas shopping season in full swing in SF's usually busy shopping areas. Market St looks terrible from what I remember years ago even in front of the Westfield luxury mall. Union sq was deserted during the week day, pretty sad. It used to be full when I worked there, because tons of workers were commuting DT, there were people walking down the streets during the weekday. In comparison, DC monuments still attract people, even local crowds.

I visited SF pre-pandemic and it was sad then. The homeless situation just makes the place unpleasant. No one wants a man pissing on the wall ten feet away while waiting to go have breakfast.

Some parts of SF went downhill because of proximity to the drug alley - Tenderloin, which had always been a bad area. But there are areas that used to be always nice and have rebounded for the most part. tent situation used to be worse TBH during the pandemic than what it is now. All the cities went downhill with the pandemic. But some of them are bouncing back faster than others, except business areas that are too empty now to support local business. Market street used to have a lot of workers around, now it's only tourists. Seems like affluent suburbanites shop elsewhere to not have to deal. DC isn't an exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty straightforward. How much does anyone pay attention to these tax rates when planning their vacation anyway? And, as the article notes, the proposed rates are similar to other large cities. The money just goes into promoting more tourism.

Honestly, DC has to work extra hard to undo the stink of the Trump years.

People do pay attention to the overall cost. They are benchmarking themselves against NYC and LA. But DC is not NYC or LA. If it’s just as expensive to stay in DC as NYC or LA it won’t be hard for people to decide where they would prefer to visit.

Comparing NYC/LA/DC is like comparing oranges/apples and cherries. Each city has its unique attractions and range of prices, but overall, DC is cheaper than the other two, and also has less variety of stuff to do or reasons to come here.

Why don’t you go read the article champ. The tax increase is stated to be reasonable because it would then align DC prices with other cities. The tax will make DC more expensive and take away this value proposition of being a cheaper place to travel.

People can only go one place at a time and I presume that other families are like mine and compare prices. If going to DC is just as expensive as going to one of these other places then people might reconsider. I know that I would.

If you would then you obviously don't visit these cities for specific amenities or features they have. Someone wanting to visit memorials and see the white house cannot do this in LA or NYC. Someone wanting to see Hollywood and CA coast isn't going to find it in DC no matter how cheap it is. And if you have never been in NYC and want to see it, a trip to an "alternative" city won't satisfy you. People who want to visit DC plan it because of specific things they want to see and do, not because it is a cheaper alternative to visiting Manhattan. Apples to oranges.

“We vacationing in DC this summer come hell or high water” said no one ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty straightforward. How much does anyone pay attention to these tax rates when planning their vacation anyway? And, as the article notes, the proposed rates are similar to other large cities. The money just goes into promoting more tourism.

Honestly, DC has to work extra hard to undo the stink of the Trump years.

People do pay attention to the overall cost. They are benchmarking themselves against NYC and LA. But DC is not NYC or LA. If it’s just as expensive to stay in DC as NYC or LA it won’t be hard for people to decide where they would prefer to visit.

Comparing NYC/LA/DC is like comparing oranges/apples and cherries. Each city has its unique attractions and range of prices, but overall, DC is cheaper than the other two, and also has less variety of stuff to do or reasons to come here.

Why don’t you go read the article champ. The tax increase is stated to be reasonable because it would then align DC prices with other cities. The tax will make DC more expensive and take away this value proposition of being a cheaper place to travel.

People can only go one place at a time and I presume that other families are like mine and compare prices. If going to DC is just as expensive as going to one of these other places then people might reconsider. I know that I would.

If you would then you obviously don't visit these cities for specific amenities or features they have. Someone wanting to visit memorials and see the white house cannot do this in LA or NYC. Someone wanting to see Hollywood and CA coast isn't going to find it in DC no matter how cheap it is. And if you have never been in NYC and want to see it, a trip to an "alternative" city won't satisfy you. People who want to visit DC plan it because of specific things they want to see and do, not because it is a cheaper alternative to visiting Manhattan. Apples to oranges.

“We vacationing in DC this summer come hell or high water” said no one ever.

Clearly the crowds on Mall in the summer don’t agree with you. Or the families who mob here for spring break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems pretty straightforward. How much does anyone pay attention to these tax rates when planning their vacation anyway? And, as the article notes, the proposed rates are similar to other large cities. The money just goes into promoting more tourism.

Honestly, DC has to work extra hard to undo the stink of the Trump years.

People do pay attention to the overall cost. They are benchmarking themselves against NYC and LA. But DC is not NYC or LA. If it’s just as expensive to stay in DC as NYC or LA it won’t be hard for people to decide where they would prefer to visit.

Comparing NYC/LA/DC is like comparing oranges/apples and cherries. Each city has its unique attractions and range of prices, but overall, DC is cheaper than the other two, and also has less variety of stuff to do or reasons to come here.

Why don’t you go read the article champ. The tax increase is stated to be reasonable because it would then align DC prices with other cities. The tax will make DC more expensive and take away this value proposition of being a cheaper place to travel.

People can only go one place at a time and I presume that other families are like mine and compare prices. If going to DC is just as expensive as going to one of these other places then people might reconsider. I know that I would.

If you would then you obviously don't visit these cities for specific amenities or features they have. Someone wanting to visit memorials and see the white house cannot do this in LA or NYC. Someone wanting to see Hollywood and CA coast isn't going to find it in DC no matter how cheap it is. And if you have never been in NYC and want to see it, a trip to an "alternative" city won't satisfy you. People who want to visit DC plan it because of specific things they want to see and do, not because it is a cheaper alternative to visiting Manhattan. Apples to oranges.

“We vacationing in DC this summer come hell or high water” said no one ever.

Clearly the crowds on Mall in the summer don’t agree with you. Or the families who mob here for spring break.

If it’s so crowded with tourists, why do they want to raise revenue to advertise? The whole point of this tax is because “tourism hasn’t rebounded” if bothered to read the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't vacation anywhere that I didn't feel safe and think DC should consider crime as a factor of decreased tourism.

Yes those pictures and videos of the coup Jan 6th are very scary. I bet they keep a lot of tourists away. Specially because those criminals are not being punished.