White -6%
Black + 12%
Hispanics +86%
Asian +13%
All other non-white - 69%
Wouln't hurt for whites to pay attention.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Being "Green" Means 'Young and Dumb'??
Sent to me by a friend. Back "then" most older people thought young people were "green and dumb". Still applies to a lot of young "smarter than we oldies" young people.
We'll see in time.
Merle
Thought u would appreciate this
And I didn’t realize how green we really were back when!!!
Good Old Timer's Rant
Being Green
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn't have the green thing back then.Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person...We don't like being old in the first place,
We'll see in time.
Merle
Thought u would appreciate this
And I didn’t realize how green we really were back when!!!
Good Old Timer's Rant
Being Green
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn't have the green thing back then.Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person...We don't like being old in the first place,
No Santorum as My President
The more I listen to this good-looking, rather charming Republican chastise Romney instead of calling more attention to the obvious failures of Obama, the more I feel his election would not be in the best interests of the majority of citizens in this country.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Photo ID Before Voting? You Bet
The only group that consistently opposes this action, is the bosses of the Democrat party. Why else?, when you need a photo ID for so many others reasons with a direct effect on the the protection of this country.
Why are the Democrat bosses led by Obama, opposed? I ask the question in jest. Let those who oppose, act stupid, not the rest of us.
Why are the Democrat bosses led by Obama, opposed? I ask the question in jest. Let those who oppose, act stupid, not the rest of us.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Liberal Left Attacks on Limbaugh While Obama Lover Scumbags Go Unchallenged
I don't listen or read Rush Limbaugh but I resent the left's attack on free speech largely because he is ONE VOICE ONLY. among thousands of others, for the Republican and Tea Party and Independents, while the left has scumbags like Bill Maher, etc. and the liberal media just smiles and says vote for Obama for another term, give union bosses more power and pensions that amount up to 80% of the union retirees total salary.
As to pensions, just click on the "Search" bar at the right had side above my profile. I don't blame the people who receive fabulous government pensions, I detest the politicians who granted them.
As to pensions, just click on the "Search" bar at the right had side above my profile. I don't blame the people who receive fabulous government pensions, I detest the politicians who granted them.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Peoria's Best, Ho, Ho, Protest and Don't Even Know the "Score"
"Stand Up Peoria" folks want a guaranteed future. Ho, ho, ho, and ho. Sounds like they all would like the U.S. to be a Socialist country.
Bet every one of them voted for Obama and will vote for him again. Or voted Democrat or didn't vote at all. What do they like about Obama? Obama has his hand in the pockets of everybody who has earned their money honestly or at least in accordance with the law while putting that money in the pockets of those who want "a guaranteed future".
Maybe part of those who would vote for Blago AFTER he gets out of prison.
Such a sorry sounding group.
So sad.
Bet every one of them voted for Obama and will vote for him again. Or voted Democrat or didn't vote at all. What do they like about Obama? Obama has his hand in the pockets of everybody who has earned their money honestly or at least in accordance with the law while putting that money in the pockets of those who want "a guaranteed future".
Maybe part of those who would vote for Blago AFTER he gets out of prison.
Such a sorry sounding group.
So sad.
Santorum Too Much a Right-Winger
The man has no chance of winning. Neither does Romney. Newt will always have some good ideas but has no chance of being nominated by the Republicans. Paul is a conservative but too far out of favor with the Republican kingmakers.
I reiterate. If no saviour is going to come forward in Tampa, Republican big money should go to trying to hold the House and win the Senate.
Are any of the members of the Republican good old boys and girls club listening or even thinking clearly? Probably, but they are going to be just like the Titanic.
Sobeit. I may sit out my first presidential election in memory.
So sad.
I reiterate. If no saviour is going to come forward in Tampa, Republican big money should go to trying to hold the House and win the Senate.
Are any of the members of the Republican good old boys and girls club listening or even thinking clearly? Probably, but they are going to be just like the Titanic.
Sobeit. I may sit out my first presidential election in memory.
So sad.
Ineffective Teachers - A Better Way to Handle
The New York system appraisal is unfortunate. Perhaps Peoria could follow successful systems described below. Some please pass this on to Lathan.
Merle
Editorial: More on the scarlet letter frenzy
By Sandi Jacobs
As we discussed in our recent blog post [http://www.nctq.org/p/tqb/viewStory.jsp?id=30762 ], we view the public reporting of individual teachers' evaluation ratings as unfortunate scarlet letter policies that are ultimately bad for the profession. In the aftermath of the public release of NYC's value-added data last week, we decided that the matter was worth revisiting.
First and foremost, if a teacher consistently isn't cutting it in the classroom, then school districts should have the legal wherewithal (not to mention the fortitude) to dismiss that teacher. While it's true that too many states currently don't make it clear enough that a teacher can be dismissed for ineffective classroom performance, this is an issue that should be taken up in states' dismissal policies, not in the form of parental notification policies that in effect use shame to passive-aggressively push poor performers out of the classroom.
Some states--including Florida and Indiana--are now requiring that parents receive notice if their children are taught by ineffective teachers. We know these policies are not based on a desire to humiliate low-performing teachers but on a belief that the "consumer" should be informed. However, as is the nature of public school, parents aren't consumers at the teacher level; they are generally not able to hand-pick their child's teacher each year. Thus, releasing poor performers' ratings--or high-performing teachers' ratings, for that matter--is opening a Pandora's box that is sure to set schools and districts spinning.
The situation in New York City is especially unfortunate because the value-added data that have been released were never intended to stand alone--let alone, be published--as a teacher's rating. Much has been documented about how flawed the data are--there was insufficient roster verification, for starters. But even if the data were rock solid, publishing just one evaluation metric in isolation will always paint an incomplete picture of teacher performance. These kinds of actions only reinforce the belief that too many teachers already have: that the part and parcel purpose of these new evaluation systems is just to fire a lot of teachers.
But we don't believe that is the purpose of teacher evaluation or the intention of the new generation of systems coming online. Yes, they should provide districts and principals with data that should help them to make informed HR decisions. And it's those actions that should give parents assurance that their children have effective teachers. But ultimately, if we see the crux of teacher evaluation as being a means to help all teachers grow and improve, then the reality is that some students are going to have to be in those classrooms while lower-performing teachers are trying to get better. And teachers need to be able to go to the supermarket without their job performance being public knowledge while they are trying to grow and improve.
We think Rhode Island is on a better path. The state's districts have the responsibility of ensuring that no student is placed with an ineffective teacher two years in a row. Combined with policy that clearly ties ineffective ratings to dismissal and prevents the awarding of tenure to teachers with ineffective ratings, this approach can give parents and the public confidence about the state's teaching force.
-----------------------------------
See also:
Teacher quality widely diffused, ratings indicate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/education/teacher-quality-widely-diffused-nyc-ratings-indicate.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Shame is not the solution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/opinion/for-teachers-shame-is-no-solution.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
*********************************************--
Jerry P. BeckerDept. of Curriculum & InstructionSouthern Illinois University625 Wham DriveMail Code 4610Carbondale, IL 62901-4610Phone: (618) 453-4241 [O] (618) 457-8903 [H]Fax: (618) 453-4244E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu
Merle
Editorial: More on the scarlet letter frenzy
By Sandi Jacobs
As we discussed in our recent blog post [http://www.nctq.org/p/tqb/viewStory.jsp?id=30762 ], we view the public reporting of individual teachers' evaluation ratings as unfortunate scarlet letter policies that are ultimately bad for the profession. In the aftermath of the public release of NYC's value-added data last week, we decided that the matter was worth revisiting.
First and foremost, if a teacher consistently isn't cutting it in the classroom, then school districts should have the legal wherewithal (not to mention the fortitude) to dismiss that teacher. While it's true that too many states currently don't make it clear enough that a teacher can be dismissed for ineffective classroom performance, this is an issue that should be taken up in states' dismissal policies, not in the form of parental notification policies that in effect use shame to passive-aggressively push poor performers out of the classroom.
Some states--including Florida and Indiana--are now requiring that parents receive notice if their children are taught by ineffective teachers. We know these policies are not based on a desire to humiliate low-performing teachers but on a belief that the "consumer" should be informed. However, as is the nature of public school, parents aren't consumers at the teacher level; they are generally not able to hand-pick their child's teacher each year. Thus, releasing poor performers' ratings--or high-performing teachers' ratings, for that matter--is opening a Pandora's box that is sure to set schools and districts spinning.
The situation in New York City is especially unfortunate because the value-added data that have been released were never intended to stand alone--let alone, be published--as a teacher's rating. Much has been documented about how flawed the data are--there was insufficient roster verification, for starters. But even if the data were rock solid, publishing just one evaluation metric in isolation will always paint an incomplete picture of teacher performance. These kinds of actions only reinforce the belief that too many teachers already have: that the part and parcel purpose of these new evaluation systems is just to fire a lot of teachers.
But we don't believe that is the purpose of teacher evaluation or the intention of the new generation of systems coming online. Yes, they should provide districts and principals with data that should help them to make informed HR decisions. And it's those actions that should give parents assurance that their children have effective teachers. But ultimately, if we see the crux of teacher evaluation as being a means to help all teachers grow and improve, then the reality is that some students are going to have to be in those classrooms while lower-performing teachers are trying to get better. And teachers need to be able to go to the supermarket without their job performance being public knowledge while they are trying to grow and improve.
We think Rhode Island is on a better path. The state's districts have the responsibility of ensuring that no student is placed with an ineffective teacher two years in a row. Combined with policy that clearly ties ineffective ratings to dismissal and prevents the awarding of tenure to teachers with ineffective ratings, this approach can give parents and the public confidence about the state's teaching force.
-----------------------------------
See also:
Teacher quality widely diffused, ratings indicate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/education/teacher-quality-widely-diffused-nyc-ratings-indicate.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Shame is not the solution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/opinion/for-teachers-shame-is-no-solution.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
*********************************************--
Jerry P. BeckerDept. of Curriculum & InstructionSouthern Illinois University625 Wham DriveMail Code 4610Carbondale, IL 62901-4610Phone: (618) 453-4241 [O] (618) 457-8903 [H]Fax: (618) 453-4244E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Republican Candidates Need to Find a Subject That Appeals to Most Voters
"And do you imaginethat once a thing has been said, it is enough? It has to be dinned into people; it has to be said over and over again". ( Russian intellect, Alexander Hergen)
Where is Joe or Where Has He Been?
I suggest V-P Biden will be replaced by a woman; younger and white with a successful business background. Who? Someone who starts popping up in the news and will be appearing frequently near Obama.
Hm.
Hm.
Monday, March 12, 2012
John Sharp, JS Reporter, Writes About the Planned New Marriott in Peoria
For nearly 40 months, Peorians have been hearing the name "Marriott" paired with "Downtown."
The only problem, there is no Marriott Hotel Downtown connected to the Peoria Civic Center.
That could all change this month, once the final details involving a lease agreement between the developer, EM Properties, and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria are settled.
After that happens, and a closing goes as scheduled, the city could showcase its new 284-room refurbished Hotel Pere Marquette with the Marriott name attached during the 2013 Illinois High School Association March Madness tournaments.
"It will be nice for our four-star Marriott Pere to open and re-establish the bar for superior quality in service in Downtown Peoria," Mayor Jim Ardis said. "Having our hotel attached to our Civic Center was critical and having the top name in the business on the hotel was even more important."
The taxpayers' commitment on the Downtown project includes a $32.5 million bond and a $7 million loan to the developer.
For that investment, Peoria gets a full-service, luxury Marriott hotel backed by a lot of faith from city taxpayers that the Maryland-based corporation can provide a return suitable to satisfying bond repayments for the next 23 years.
"I think having a Marriott flag with a four-star hotel attached to it is going to be a huge drawing card," 3rd District City Councilman Timothy Riggenbach said. "I think there are a lot of different benefits it will bring that you can't really put down on paper."
Corporate profile
Marriott International Inc. is a Bethesda, Md., Fortune 500 company that employs 129,000 people - slightly more, corporate-wide, than the 115,000 population of the city of Peoria - generating $12.3 billion worldwide in 2011, with a net income of $435 million.
Its stock sells at about $35 a share, or lower than competitor Starwood Hotels & Resorts (which includes Sheraton and its Four Points hotels), which sells at $54 a share, though Starwood's annual revenue is considerably less. Hyatt Hotels, which sell at about $40 a share, generated about $990 million in revenue.
Marriott's corporate ownership has been steady, with J.W. Marriott Jr. serving as CEO since 1972 (his father first began the business, as a root beer stand, in 1927).
"I think they are a top tier brand," said Thomas Maier, assistant professor of leadership and revenue analytics at DePaul University's School of Hospitality Leadership. "I think there is a synergy between the brand loyalty and recognition and . . . it will be a combination of reasons people will want to go to Peoria for a meeting."
The corporation operates about 3,500 hotels and 600,000 rooms, or about 9 percent of all hotel rooms in the U.S. It ranks third or fourth in online listings of the largest hotel chains, operating fewer properties than Wyndham Worldwide, but more than Starwood and Hyatt. The Chicago-based equity analyst company Morningstar places Marriott International at No. 2 in the U.S.
"Marriott, of course, is a well-recognized brand in terms of the number of rooms they have and their rankings," said Kara Wolfe, associate professor and director of the hospitality leadership program at Bradley University.
While the area already has Marriott properties in Peoria and East Peoria, it doesn't have any hotel property like what is anticipated to be connected to the Civic Center. The $92.8 million complex will have 401 rooms, making it the largest hotel property in the area.
The new Marriott complex includes a $23.5 million renovation of the Hotel Pere Marquette and the construction of a 117-room, $14.2 million Marriott Courtyard where Big Al's strip bar and its adjoined taverns are located.
Once closing takes place, renovation work is expected to commence immediately inside the Pere Marquette so it can open by March 1, 2013. If not, the city could get $41,000 a month from EM Properties.
Construction also is expected to begin shortly on the new Big Al's on Jefferson Avenue across from the Peoria Civic Center. It will replace the current venue on Main Street, which will be demolished for the new Marriott Courtyard.
The overall project has arguably been the most talked about and scrutinized development in Downtown Peoria, aside from the museum project, since the Peoria Civic Center's development in the late 1970s.
There have been multiple blown deadlines and three redevelopment agreements have evolved since the first Marriott Hotel design was introduced in 2008. It was redesigned into the present look - two hotel towers along Main Street connected via a $6.3 million skywalk and parking garage - in 2010.
Once at $102 million, the project's costs have been lowered to $92.8 million largely because a $9 million developer's fee was cut.
Financing had been difficult during the recent economic recession when EM Properties' Gary Matthews was trying to finalize the deal.
The Marriott name isn't immune to economic recessions, either.
According to a Feb. 15 Morningstar analysis, the company's North America hotels generated more than 80 percent of hotel revenue in 2010, "exposing the company to an economic downturn in North America to a greater extent than competitors." Morningstar is predicting revenues per available room - which had grown industry-wide from 2010 to 2011 - to contract in 2013 or 2014.
"In the event that nonfarm payrolls in the U.S. start to decline and the economy contracts, Marriott stands to experience a deterioration in financial results," according to the analysis, written by stock analyst Chad Mollman.
Mollman, though, recognized something that Peoria city officials and Matthews have been touting since the Marriott name was first attached to the property - the company's loyalty program called "Marriott Rewards," which offers travel and leisure discounts.
"People, when they are talking about loyalty programs, are looking at the value perception," Maier said. "With Marriott, with their different product experiences that you can have with resorts and vacation ownership, they have opportunities and partnerships with many vendors and product lines that provide a good value."
A corporate spokesperson did not return a call for comment from the Journal Star, but Ardis said the company has been "wowed" by the Civic Center and its convention and theater components. He said Marriott representatives have visited Peoria "many times" since the project was first introduced.
Boosting Downtown
Peorians who are skeptical the Marriott's brand can't sell should look to Normal, where a much smaller Marriott property has served as an anchor to a downtown-related redevelopment project.
That project, much like the Peoria hotel, is partially financed by the municipal government.
It is somewhat similar in its deal as East Peoria's agreement with hotelier John Q. Hammons for the Embassy Suites and Conference Center, which opened in early 2008. The more than $60 million project was constructed with taxpayers' assistance; $25 million in land, infrastructure and conference center construction paid back through taxes generated by the hotel and center.
The Normal project, also a John Q. Hammons development, required taxpayers in Normal to contribute $21.6 million toward a $60 million complex. One of the main public benefits, officials said, is that a conference center attached to the hotel is utilized by local and public organizations.
"Whenever we are talking about the Marriott, it's generally nothing but positive things," said Joe Tulley, marketing manager with the Uptown renewal project with the town of Normal. "It hasn't been a super long time since it's been (built), but you'd almost have to be blind not to see the impact."
Normal officials approved spending $3 million in acquiring property, $12.5 million to build the conference center, and $6.1 million on a parking deck and hotel. It opened in 2009.
The Uptown area has experienced a renewal of sorts, with the addition of the Children's Discovery Museum and the opening of boutique shops and restaurants near the town's Amtrak station.
The Marriott property, according to Normal officials, serves as an anchor to that development.
"The city fathers got together and decided this area was a downtrodden campus town with commercial buildings in disrepair," Tulley said. "They put together this vision, and the Marriott is part of it."
While the Marriott project in Peoria isn't necessarily an anchor because of its distance from the Warehouse District, the city wants to redevelop that area in a similar fashion as the Uptown project with shops, bars and restaurants. The Warehouse District will be anchored by the Peoria Riverfront Museum and Caterpillar Experience Visitors Center.
"Peorians and all central Illinoisans will be proud of the new Marriott complex when it is finished," Ardis said. "I'm thankful for those who have supported it through very difficult times."
John Sharp can be reached at 686-3282 or jsharp@pjstar.com. Follow him on Twitter @JohnSharp99.
The only problem, there is no Marriott Hotel Downtown connected to the Peoria Civic Center.
That could all change this month, once the final details involving a lease agreement between the developer, EM Properties, and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria are settled.
After that happens, and a closing goes as scheduled, the city could showcase its new 284-room refurbished Hotel Pere Marquette with the Marriott name attached during the 2013 Illinois High School Association March Madness tournaments.
"It will be nice for our four-star Marriott Pere to open and re-establish the bar for superior quality in service in Downtown Peoria," Mayor Jim Ardis said. "Having our hotel attached to our Civic Center was critical and having the top name in the business on the hotel was even more important."
The taxpayers' commitment on the Downtown project includes a $32.5 million bond and a $7 million loan to the developer.
For that investment, Peoria gets a full-service, luxury Marriott hotel backed by a lot of faith from city taxpayers that the Maryland-based corporation can provide a return suitable to satisfying bond repayments for the next 23 years.
"I think having a Marriott flag with a four-star hotel attached to it is going to be a huge drawing card," 3rd District City Councilman Timothy Riggenbach said. "I think there are a lot of different benefits it will bring that you can't really put down on paper."
Corporate profile
Marriott International Inc. is a Bethesda, Md., Fortune 500 company that employs 129,000 people - slightly more, corporate-wide, than the 115,000 population of the city of Peoria - generating $12.3 billion worldwide in 2011, with a net income of $435 million.
Its stock sells at about $35 a share, or lower than competitor Starwood Hotels & Resorts (which includes Sheraton and its Four Points hotels), which sells at $54 a share, though Starwood's annual revenue is considerably less. Hyatt Hotels, which sell at about $40 a share, generated about $990 million in revenue.
Marriott's corporate ownership has been steady, with J.W. Marriott Jr. serving as CEO since 1972 (his father first began the business, as a root beer stand, in 1927).
"I think they are a top tier brand," said Thomas Maier, assistant professor of leadership and revenue analytics at DePaul University's School of Hospitality Leadership. "I think there is a synergy between the brand loyalty and recognition and . . . it will be a combination of reasons people will want to go to Peoria for a meeting."
The corporation operates about 3,500 hotels and 600,000 rooms, or about 9 percent of all hotel rooms in the U.S. It ranks third or fourth in online listings of the largest hotel chains, operating fewer properties than Wyndham Worldwide, but more than Starwood and Hyatt. The Chicago-based equity analyst company Morningstar places Marriott International at No. 2 in the U.S.
"Marriott, of course, is a well-recognized brand in terms of the number of rooms they have and their rankings," said Kara Wolfe, associate professor and director of the hospitality leadership program at Bradley University.
While the area already has Marriott properties in Peoria and East Peoria, it doesn't have any hotel property like what is anticipated to be connected to the Civic Center. The $92.8 million complex will have 401 rooms, making it the largest hotel property in the area.
The new Marriott complex includes a $23.5 million renovation of the Hotel Pere Marquette and the construction of a 117-room, $14.2 million Marriott Courtyard where Big Al's strip bar and its adjoined taverns are located.
Once closing takes place, renovation work is expected to commence immediately inside the Pere Marquette so it can open by March 1, 2013. If not, the city could get $41,000 a month from EM Properties.
Construction also is expected to begin shortly on the new Big Al's on Jefferson Avenue across from the Peoria Civic Center. It will replace the current venue on Main Street, which will be demolished for the new Marriott Courtyard.
The overall project has arguably been the most talked about and scrutinized development in Downtown Peoria, aside from the museum project, since the Peoria Civic Center's development in the late 1970s.
There have been multiple blown deadlines and three redevelopment agreements have evolved since the first Marriott Hotel design was introduced in 2008. It was redesigned into the present look - two hotel towers along Main Street connected via a $6.3 million skywalk and parking garage - in 2010.
Once at $102 million, the project's costs have been lowered to $92.8 million largely because a $9 million developer's fee was cut.
Financing had been difficult during the recent economic recession when EM Properties' Gary Matthews was trying to finalize the deal.
The Marriott name isn't immune to economic recessions, either.
According to a Feb. 15 Morningstar analysis, the company's North America hotels generated more than 80 percent of hotel revenue in 2010, "exposing the company to an economic downturn in North America to a greater extent than competitors." Morningstar is predicting revenues per available room - which had grown industry-wide from 2010 to 2011 - to contract in 2013 or 2014.
"In the event that nonfarm payrolls in the U.S. start to decline and the economy contracts, Marriott stands to experience a deterioration in financial results," according to the analysis, written by stock analyst Chad Mollman.
Mollman, though, recognized something that Peoria city officials and Matthews have been touting since the Marriott name was first attached to the property - the company's loyalty program called "Marriott Rewards," which offers travel and leisure discounts.
"People, when they are talking about loyalty programs, are looking at the value perception," Maier said. "With Marriott, with their different product experiences that you can have with resorts and vacation ownership, they have opportunities and partnerships with many vendors and product lines that provide a good value."
A corporate spokesperson did not return a call for comment from the Journal Star, but Ardis said the company has been "wowed" by the Civic Center and its convention and theater components. He said Marriott representatives have visited Peoria "many times" since the project was first introduced.
Boosting Downtown
Peorians who are skeptical the Marriott's brand can't sell should look to Normal, where a much smaller Marriott property has served as an anchor to a downtown-related redevelopment project.
That project, much like the Peoria hotel, is partially financed by the municipal government.
It is somewhat similar in its deal as East Peoria's agreement with hotelier John Q. Hammons for the Embassy Suites and Conference Center, which opened in early 2008. The more than $60 million project was constructed with taxpayers' assistance; $25 million in land, infrastructure and conference center construction paid back through taxes generated by the hotel and center.
The Normal project, also a John Q. Hammons development, required taxpayers in Normal to contribute $21.6 million toward a $60 million complex. One of the main public benefits, officials said, is that a conference center attached to the hotel is utilized by local and public organizations.
"Whenever we are talking about the Marriott, it's generally nothing but positive things," said Joe Tulley, marketing manager with the Uptown renewal project with the town of Normal. "It hasn't been a super long time since it's been (built), but you'd almost have to be blind not to see the impact."
Normal officials approved spending $3 million in acquiring property, $12.5 million to build the conference center, and $6.1 million on a parking deck and hotel. It opened in 2009.
The Uptown area has experienced a renewal of sorts, with the addition of the Children's Discovery Museum and the opening of boutique shops and restaurants near the town's Amtrak station.
The Marriott property, according to Normal officials, serves as an anchor to that development.
"The city fathers got together and decided this area was a downtrodden campus town with commercial buildings in disrepair," Tulley said. "They put together this vision, and the Marriott is part of it."
While the Marriott project in Peoria isn't necessarily an anchor because of its distance from the Warehouse District, the city wants to redevelop that area in a similar fashion as the Uptown project with shops, bars and restaurants. The Warehouse District will be anchored by the Peoria Riverfront Museum and Caterpillar Experience Visitors Center.
"Peorians and all central Illinoisans will be proud of the new Marriott complex when it is finished," Ardis said. "I'm thankful for those who have supported it through very difficult times."
John Sharp can be reached at 686-3282 or jsharp@pjstar.com. Follow him on Twitter @JohnSharp99.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)