Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 4, 1993 TAG: 9302040397
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
HOTEL TAX
HERE'S the picture:A bill allowing Roanoke County to raise its hotel-occupancy tax from 2 percent to 5 percent has been sent by the General Assembly to the governor, after an amendment by state Sen. Brandon Bell to require all the extra revenue to go to tourism. County officials reluctantly agreed to the amendment; otherwise, said Supervisor Bob Johnson, tourism lobbyists threatened to characterize the bill as a tax increase, thus killing it in a legislative election year.
Now, what's wrong with the picture?
Plenty.
First, Roanoke County shouldn't have to go to the legislature for, and the legislators shouldn't have to spend time on, raising one jurisdiction's hotel tax. Local taxing authority should be uniform throughout the state.
Second, the assembly shouldn't stick its nose into telling the county how to spend the money. Using the occupancy tax for tourism makes sense, but it should be the county's decision.
Third, who's kidding whom? It is a tax increase, or will be when the county follows through (which, since the county asked for the authority to raise the levy, seems a reasonable prospect).
Fourth, it's ridiculous that the mere mention of the words "tax increase" should be a taboo requiring such legislative contortions. A resort to taxation - even straightforwardly higher taxes on county residents - should not be an inconceivable option. Roanoke County, populous and urbanizing, faces growing needs - and expenses - for services and infrastructure.
Fifth, why would this proposed tax increase, identified as such, be so unpalatable? When they're staying in other places, Roanoke County residents (and other Virginians) often must pay a hotel-occupancy tax, and it's sometimes a lot more than 2 (or even 5) percent. At stake is a payback from out-of-towners who stay in the county (or from out-of-staters visiting Virginia).
Sixth, the mandate isn't what it seems. "Earmarking" for tourism the $300,000 in extra revenue really imposes a $300,000 floor on all county tourism spending. That's because a county dollar raised from the hotel-tax hike is indistinguishable from a county dollar raised from any other source. If or when the county reaches the point that it would be spending $300,000 from all revenues on tourism, the mandate becomes meaningless.
Finally, why should a bill be amended simply because one or another special-interest lobby threatens to bad-mouth it if it isn't amended? Can't anything, even a bill simply to grant Roanoke County a power already possessed by some other Virginia jurisdictions, be decided on the merits?