Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
easilyscan

Minneapolis council proposes to boost tourism by… imposing new tax on tourism

By easilyscan, in The Geek Club

Recommended Posts

easilyscan    878

easilyscan
Posted
11 minutes ago, jbycho said:

That is pretty funny. 

I'd bet my last dollar that the city Council member(s) who came up with the idea is/are all DFL'ers (democrat farmer labor)

Minnesotans in the know just refer to them as dumb for lifers. I give you governor Tampon Tim Walz & rest my case.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

easilyscan    878

easilyscan
Posted
41 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Isn’t this vintage Trump logic? The whole theory of the tariffs is based on the same argument. 

Not going to touch on the tariffs because I'm not educated on them.

As for states intentionally gouging tourists, let's just say I've never been a big fan. 

If you lived in Minnesota your entire life like I have, you'd know that the Democratic Party has never been satisfied with being middle of the road when it comes to taxes/fees. They want to be top five, because they say that contributes to a high quality of life in the state. That's BS. It's a high quality of life for those dependent on government programs.

With that out-of-the-way, why on earth would you come up with something like this ? knowing there's a chance a family who was planning a vacation somewhere in the upper Midwest this July, could run across this article & say, I guess we'll go to Wisconsin, or South Dakota instead, because they're not coming up with new ways to gouge visitors even more than they have in the past ?

 

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

jbycho    630

jbycho
Posted
1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Isn’t this vintage Trump logic? The whole theory of the tariffs is based on the same argument. 

You lose again. You fail with every post. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

thegeneral    3,000

thegeneral
Posted

I’m not sure why they are saying it would boost tourism (are they spending that money on some tourism marketing plan or something) but the extra 6 bucks a night or so for a hotel I doubt is changing people’s vacation plans.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Davis    346

Mark Davis
Posted

I've been there once for a Final Four.  It was ok, other than being a little chilly and rainy in March.  I had more problems with the game officials than I did the city or state.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Honcho    5,148

Mike Honcho
Posted
13 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Isn’t this vintage Trump logic? The whole theory of the tariffs is based on the same argument. 

No, it's really more vintage 21st century debate, take a fact out of context and base argument around that. Here's the source story where you can read the details and then decide.

Quote

 

Minneapolis council to consider new 2% fee on hotel rooms to boost tourism

About $6 million would be generated to market Minneapolis, hold events and train and develop the hospitality workforce

Three Minneapolis City Council members have proposed a new 2% fee on hotel rooms that would be used to promote tourism.

A tourism improvement district would be created and the roughly $6 million in revenue would pay for marketing, special projects and workforce development and training.

It would be similar to Minneapolis’ downtown improvement district, except the revenue would be managed by a committee of hoteliers who would decide how to use the money. The district would be managed by the Greater Minneapolis Convention and Visitors Association, aka Meet Minneapolis.

Council Members Robin Wonsley, Katie Cashman and Michael Rainville are sponsoring the ordinance, which would allow a 2% “service charge” on the sale of rooms at hotels, motels, boarding houses, bed and breakfasts, and other buildings with 50 or more rooms for rent.

The tourism district is part of Meet Minneapolis’ destination master plan, which aims “to optimize Minneapolis’ visitor economy to ensure year-round vibrancy, a thriving downtown and radiant cultural hubs.”

“Hotel stakeholders have been asking for the creation of a Tourism Improvement District for years and we are finally moving forward to make it happen,” Cashman said in an email.

In an email to constituents, Wonsley said university-area hospitality leaders encouraged her to invest the proceeds beyond downtown. Wonsley represents Ward 2, which includes the University of Minnesota. She said the ward is home to the “largest concentration of hospitality outside of downtown,” so extending the tourism district into the university area is important to the city’s growth. Meet Minneapolis and her co-authors agreed to write the ordinance to say activities and improvements will be “implemented equitably” with regard to geography, including areas outside of downtown.

Wonsley said Unite Here Local 17, the state’s hospitality union, also wants to ensure the ordinance increases investment in the hospitality workforce, so the tax revenue can be spent on workforce development and training.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

thegeneral    3,000

thegeneral
Posted
1 minute ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Tourism??? Who the hell wants to visit that Liberal cesspool of humanity? 

Apparently a lot of people.

Minneapolis sold a record 680,000 hotel rooms during summer 2024, according to Meet Minneapolis, setting post-pandemic highs for summer occupancy, room demand and room revenue. The occupancy rate last August was over 70% — the highest since October 2019.

I go there for work a few times a year. Lots of big businesses HQ there. Great food town.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

squistion    1,981

squistion
Posted

When people are planning a vacation they research the tax rates of potential cities in order to make a decision?

I doubt that.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBayXXXVII    2,497

TBayXXXVII
Posted

I don't have a problem with this.  In fact, I've said that this is exactly what NJ should do.  People are going to visit your state and cities... paying an extra few bucks here and there isn't going to deter them from not traveling there.  I didn't read the article, but my guess is that the charges are nominal like a few bucks here and there.  To note, I've even suggest to do this on all flights and toll plazas as well.  It's even easier today with some states moving off of manned tolls and just going by license plates.

NJ has tons of tourist areas along the coast.  For anyone renting a house, who's home address is outside of the NJ, they can be charged an extra 2%.  Charge an extra 2 to 5% on hotel rooms.  Another 2 to 5% on airline tickets.  If a family of 4 is flying from... I don't know, Kansas, to stay in Wildwood.  It's gong to to cast them about $6k between travel, lodging, and food/entertainment.  They know that going in.  If they find out it's going to cost $6250, are they now not going to go?  I'd bet against it.

I'd even go as high as 10% up in the northeast.  If people want to stay in NJ and travel to NY via train, charge 10 to 15%... it'll still be a heck of a lot cheaper than staying in NYC.

My son has family on his mother's side, that live in Ohio.  I've been there quite a few times.  While the state does not specifically charge out-of-state people for hotel rooms, they have a "transient guest" tax.  Now, I think we can all assume, fairly reasonably, that transient guests are very rarely state residents.  To note, the qualification on a "transient guest" is someone staying less than 30 days.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

avoiding injuries    1,522

avoiding injuries
Posted
15 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Apparently a lot of people.

Minneapolis sold a record 680,000 hotel rooms during summer 2024, according to Meet Minneapolis, setting post-pandemic highs for summer occupancy, room demand and room revenue. The occupancy rate last August was over 70% — the highest since October 2019.

I go there for work a few times a year. Lots of big businesses HQ there. Great food town.

400,000 of the 680,000 were bought by the government for illegal immigrants. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBayXXXVII    2,497

TBayXXXVII
Posted
14 minutes ago, easilyscan said:

Minnesota is already #3 when it comes to gouging tourists. Looks like they want to move up in the rankings.

https://dailypassport.com/cities-states-highest-tourist-travel-hotel-taxes/

I'm fine with this.  The tax payers are the main reason those tourist venues exist.  If they can recoup some of that cost from people who don't have to pay for it, I say good for them.

  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

jbycho    630

jbycho
Posted
21 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

The biggest problem for tourism is the Canadian boycott, which is imitated by many Europeans. 

😆 :doh:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing The Geek Club
×