This week, The Ritz Carlton ( @ritzcarlton ) ownership group in Los Angeles expressed frustration and opposition to Project #Roomkey taking over the hotel and residences in an effort to combat homelessness in the LA area. Residents went so far to express concerns regarding safety, security, property values, and overall lifestyle. Residents who pay between $1million and $40 million per unit have all rights to be concerned and stonewall the move. However, the city states that since the hotel and residences received tax incentives up to $25 million, they have every right to place this segment of the population in this hotel versus one that received no breaks during construction.
Having seen a hotel in New Orleans being taken over by the city last month to house the homeless population and protect them from Covid-19, I can share my personal insight and opinions on the matter. A limited service Hilton branded hotel in the CBD of New Orleans took in over 100 people at the beginning of the pandemic. The city drove public buses throughout the city and picked people up under police and medical escort and drove them to the hotel. Strict curfew was put into place and the general public was not allowed within 100 feet of the hotel.
I feel that Ritz Carlton has the right to protest this position from the city for a variety of reasons. My first question to the city is whether or not the tax breaks came at sacrifice to Ritz Carlton and LA Live ( @LALive )? When the deal was reached for both parties to make concessions, was it expressly written that the hotel would have to "shelter" a group of people at the directive of the city in a time of crisis? If not, then the hotel shouldn't house the homeless in this case. My second question to the city is that while Project RoomKey ( @roomkeytracker ) is a great initiative and cause, why seek use of a premium, luxury hotel? Some of the world's wealthiest and most successful people stay at this hotel year round spending tens of thousands of dollars each when traveling. Is this money no good for the county of Los Angeles ( @countyofLA ) ? Can the city afford to lose this revenue stream because of the negative publicity from this stunt? I am sure the wealthy will find somewhere else to stay but again at what small and large cost to the city? While the hotel group has taken advantage of tax breaks, this shouldn't put them at the mercy of the city and move that could damage the image, property values, revenue streams, and #jobs for so many in this complex. Will the city reimburse the hotels for new sheets, towels, furniture, tvs, carpet, washing machines, supplies and so on? Let's be realistic-- those will all require replacing and at a fraction of the operational costs to occupy the hotels won't be able to replace on their own dime without suffering additional loss. Why not seek out smaller branded hotels and fill those hotels up? The long term costs of rebuilding and renovating (collectively) will be drastically lower than that of a very popular and sought out hotel and residence. Who travels to LA and says I want to stay at the Generic small hotel on Figueroa street versus "Let's Stay at the Ritz or the hotels at LA LIVE"?
On the other hand I see the county's point of view on the issue. They are not being choosey about which hotels to use and are noting that the management group has taken advantage of tax dollars that in theory could go towards solving this homeless issue. The county has the right to seize the hotels and utilize them for how they see fit during this crisis. All this would do in the short term is pave the way for a series of hearings both for and against which would only delay the process. During the pandemic, timing is crucial. This is a 90-150 day process which at the end of the day doesn't help the homeless when structured care is needed most. If this were a natural disaster or terror attack, the government would be seizing hotels like this to house workers, set up additional medical facilities and so on in the interest of public safety.
Looking at this through several lenses at one time presents a cloudy option that in theory could benefit all parties. The solution is not a simple one though. Marriott International ( @Marriott ) should step in and offer some of its lower branded hotels in a negotiated deal. They would have to negotiate whether the hotels receive 75% of the cost per room (question being operational cost or 75% of BAR/ market rate). If Marriott offers the lower branded hotels that aren't as luxurious and expensive (especially when time to clean and renovate is needed), then the Ritz Carlton potentially has an avenue to escape this potentially devastating PR and Business nightmare. The cost to clean and renovate a Residence Inn would be extremely lower than that of the Ritz. Further to my point earlier about where customers choose to stay, the Ritz is a destination in LA whereas the Residence Inn or Courtyard on Figueroa isn't. The Ritz Carlton has a great charitable program, known as Ritz Carlton Footprints ( @ritzcarltonCSR ) orchestrated by its Ladies and Gentlemen which would thrive on an opportunity to help the less fortunate in Los Angeles. This is the time. Step up and offer small hotels for Project Roomkey. Protect the Ritz Carlton and all its grandeur. Protect the #lives, #careers, property values, #restaurants, scenery and so on of LA Live. Preserve it for the next 30 years. Contribute to community spirit of giving. When we come out from #Covid , it will be time to rebuild, strengthen, and re-engage travel in this great world that we have. But LA County, you cannot force this prestigious establishment to shelter the homeless and then close its doors forever when Covid19 is a thing of the past. They won't be able to come back.
(source https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ritz-carlton-opposes-plan-to-move-homeless-into-empty-rooms/ar-BB13DOkk)
