news-record.com

NEWS

Charges fly over plan for hotel

Tuesday, January 26, 2010
(Updated Wednesday, January 27 - 5:19 am)

GREENSBORO — Proponents of a downtown hotel with 51 percent African American ownership have backed off their threat to stage a protest against two white hotel owners who question the merits of their project.

City and county officials have “bungled” the process in approving special federal financing for the hotel, said Mike Weaver and Dennis Quaintance, majority owners of Quaintance-Weaver Restaurants & Hotels. The two own the O. Henry Hotel and the Proximity Hotel in Greensboro.

The two have requested all public information relating to the hotel project and have threatened to sue the city and county to get the data.

That led to charges by some hotel supporters that the move was a racist one, designed to block the project.

Supporters threatened a protest march against Quaintance and Weaver on Feb. 1, the opening day of the new International Civil Rights Center & Museum.

Melvin “Skip” Alston, a real estate agent for the hotel project and museum founder, persuaded hotel advocates, including Deena Hayes, a member of the Guilford Board of Education, to view the situation in a different light.

“They saw two well-to-do white male hoteliers that were possibly trying to stop the opening of an African American -owned hotel,” said Alston, chairman of the Board of Commissioners. “I talked with them (Monday) morning and explained to them I thought it was more of a business dealing with Mike and Dennis than any sort of racial feeling.”
Alston said he knows Quaintance and Weaver have no race-tinged intentions.

Weaver and Quaintance said Monday that they don’t think council members and county commissioners asked tough questions when they approved allowing the hotel to be eligible for special federal financing. They said that without proper vetting, the hotel project might not succeed.

“It’s important for people to know that as a citizen, I have a right to be concerned about my downtown, and I make no apology,” said Weaver. “As a member of the hotel industry, I have a right to be concerned about my industry, and I make no apology. As a citizen, I have the right to question bad management in City Council and I make no apology. I think the City Council hasn’t given it full scrutiny and full due process.”

Alston is adamant, however, that Weaver has an ulterior business motive: He is interested in building a hotel downtown.

“They want to be in this market,” he said, “and they feel if this hotel is built that’s going to significantly impact their plans for doing anything in this market. It all adds up.”

Weaver denied that suggestion, but Alston said the motive is obvious.

Quaintance says that the entire hotel industry could suffer here if a glut of rooms forces hotel owners to slash room rates.

Weaver said the issue is seeing that government and the public get the right information to make informed decisions.
“I think we’re uniquely qualified to help council ask the hard questions,” he said.

If the city needs Weaver’s advice, Alston said, it should hire him  as a consultant.

Still, he has volunteered to give Weaver any document he wants about the hotel deal.

Local investors backing the hotel — to be built at Davie Street and February One Place — want recovery zone facility bonds created under the 2009 federal stimulus act. The program lets private developers  borrow at a low interest rate.

The bonds are funded and paid for privately; local taxpayers are not liable. But the construction projects still have to meet financial muster with a state commission.

Both Guilford County and Greensboro got an “allocation” under the program — $19 million for Greensboro and $9.8 million for the county — which allowed them to approve projects that could take advantage of the preferential financing.

Hayes, in an e-mail to the News & Record, said Sunday that she questioned the timing of the Quaintance-Weaver request. Hayes is a resident of the Ole Asheboro Neighborhood, which will become part owner of the hotel group.

Also, Hayes lives with John Greene, whose company — JCG & Associates — is one of the principals in the Urban Hotel Group, the development group partnering in the hotel.

 JCG & Associates was named by Henry Isaacson, an attorney for Urban Hotel Group, as one of those principals at a recent council meeting. Guilford County voting records confirm Hayes and Greene live at the same Gorrell Street address in Greensboro.

Hayes could not be reached Monday for comment. But in the e-mail, she characterized her objection to questions raised by Quaintance and Weaver.

“I am totally supportive of any citizen or organization having access to public documents. I do not consider that racial,” she wrote.

Instead, she wrote, “The people inquiring happen to be 'hoteliers’ who have allegedly consulted city staff about a hotel project that would be built by them in downtown Greensboro. The political pressure is coming from 'private hotel special interest’ not a broad citizen/constituency.”

Staff Writer Joe Killian contributed to this report

Contact Richard M. Barron at 373-7371 or richard.barron@news-record.com
 

Accompanying Photos

John Newsom (News & Record)

Photo Caption: This parking deck is part of the property being considered for a new luxury hotel in downtown Greensboro.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

buzzman

January 26, 2010 - 5:40 am EST

Greensboro doesn't need another hotel (especially one that will fail) even if "space aliens" are coming to fund and build it! Most folks could care less who owns such a business, so the 'race card' is certainly not appropriate. Deena Hayes is just one of those persons who thinks highly of herself and wants publicity. She'll be running for something higher than school board and wants folks to recognize her name.

Norm*

January 26, 2010 - 6:35 am EST

I can see why they would ask for transparency in this project. They have invested their private money and this new competition has a government subsidy. What is interesting is how our elected officials all seem to have some very subtle conflict of interest in this project.

fatboy1

January 26, 2010 - 6:42 am EST

How dare you racists question the fact that a school board member is living with her boyfriend. This is a example that should be the standard for the children of Greensboro.

How dare you racists ask the Queen and the Messiah of Greensboro to be accountable for the federal, state, and local money they line their pockets with. It's just too bad that the National Messiah cannot be present to annoint both of them on Feb 1 before it is all over they might need a pardon from Him.

mohair.sam

January 26, 2010 - 6:59 am EST

Given the city's rather embarrassing past failures in monitoring such projects in the past (the low-cost home-building fiasco from a few years back leaps to mind), I'm not sure there can be enough transparency in dealing with this. When state/federal money starts flying around to build private/profit projects, every detail should be scrutinized. I mean, if this is a good idea, why can't the developers get private financing? The moment the race card gets thrown down, it's a good sign the powerful don't want prying eyes examining the backroom deals.

holland4

January 26, 2010 - 7:23 am EST

Guess who was in charge during the Project Homestead scandal? Coincidence?

Unaffiliated

January 26, 2010 - 8:01 am EST

Project Homestead...Carolyn Coleman,County Commissioner, built her house in Pleasant Garden on property from Project Homestead! Ethical? Hope she passes the mandated "Ethics" training. Wonder if Skip will understand the training.

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:38 am EST

"why can't the developers get private financing?"

Umm, because they applied for the Recovery Zone Facility Bonds. The purpose of the program was to create jobs and revitalize the local economy. Why are you blaming Urban Hotel Group for applying for a program that was available from Washington?

Oona

January 26, 2010 - 7:24 am EST

Re: “The people inquiring happen to be 'hoteliers’ who have allegedly consulted city staff about a hotel project that would be built by them in downtown Greensboro. The political pressure is coming from 'private hotel special interest’ not a broad citizen/constituency.”
Ms. Hayes, hoteliers are not the only ones inquiring about this project. The "broad citizen/constituency" would love an opportunity to give feedback on the use of these bonds. Unfortunately, their local representatives have apparantly denied them this opportunity.

westronandnan@aol.com

January 26, 2010 - 7:27 am EST

The conflict of interest involving Skip Alston is apalling. He stands to make a handsome commission if the deal goes through and he's a part of the political entity that will decide if the deal is approved.

That's a combination that shouldn't be allowed to proceed.

holland4

January 26, 2010 - 7:32 am EST

I've thought the exact same thing. The conflict of interest is glaring. I'm amazed that no one has publicly called him out on that. Oh, wait. You can't do that unless you want to be labeled a racist.

There's something about this deal that stinks to high heaven and it doesn't have a thing to do with skin color.

newkid

January 26, 2010 - 8:48 am EST

Time for an independent investigation here...and criminal charges if warranted.

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:27 am EST

newkid please, there will be no criminal charges. What crime was committed? The information is being released to Weaver and Co. There is nothing to hide. Should the City Council and County Commission have looked into this further, perhaps. But, there were no guidelines for the recovery bond applications given from Washington to the states, therein lied the confusion.

Panacea

January 26, 2010 - 2:54 pm EST

No criminal charges maybe . . . but a blatant conflict of interest on Alston's part. He was not elected so he could use his office to enrich himself. He should have recused himself from the vote on the bonds.

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 3:09 pm EST

He did not vote on the bonds, check the minutes of the December agenda.

Beachwalk

January 26, 2010 - 11:33 pm EST

Skipper also didn't inform his fellow council members of his connection to this project. There should have been full discloser.

Beachwalk

January 26, 2010 - 11:38 pm EST

Did Skipper Chair the meeting? If so, that in itself was a conflict of interest. As Chairman, he can recognize project supporters and call others out of order if he doesn't like what they are saying. It doesn't matter that he did not vote. If he Chaired the meeting, he had a conflict of interest.

intrigued

January 26, 2010 - 8:10 am EST

This request letter in the hotel group's proposal was dated January 11th - one month after the initial vote to approve placing this project at the top for the federal bond funds was approved, though without the full knowledge of city and county elected officials. Therefore, since this is a new proposal, this project should now be placed behind the other 2 or 3 projects who had their proposals turned in by the December deadline - plain and simple.

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:29 am EST

It's not a new proposal. That was an amended proposal to reflect additional investors.

intrigued

January 26, 2010 - 12:12 pm EST

The proposal that was submitted for the December vote, which as we find out was a final vote rather than just vote to get the funds, was not only without these new investors, but is in a different location. An argument was made that Weaver Quaintance did not have a plan finalized by mid December and that's why this project was approved- this project was also not finalized at that point and was not what was voted on in December.

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 3:17 pm EST

The bottom line is that both local municipalities approved the zone recovery bonds. Rescinding the December 2009 vote would be waiving Guilford County's allocation interest, not just for the Ole Asheboro project, but the other projects lined up to receive funding as well. Yes, the proposal changed considerably, but it was a positive change, more principal money invested, more investors who were local, better/attractive location.

kikablue

January 26, 2010 - 8:09 pm EST

Maybe so, BUT it still came in after the Dec. due date.

williag_1998

January 26, 2010 - 8:35 am EST

The elected officials of Greensboro should be serving the people as they stated they would. That means providing all the details of this hotel deal. I love how the term "local taxpayers" will not be on the hook. These dollars come from taxes that the Federal Government has levied on you and I. We all have a right to know how our money is being spent. This is a scary trend that needs to stop. Grants, and Federal aid mean higher taxes for all of us. Wake up everybody....no more sleeping in bed....as my man Harold Melvin and the Bluenotes used to sing. Listen: http://popup.lala.com/popup/504684637828715714

Unaffiliated

January 26, 2010 - 8:41 am EST

Great song. Glad you posted it.

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:31 am EST

Once again, the information is being given to Weaver and Co. i don't know how many times I must repeat myself. There is no hiding of information. How can you hide something that was submitted for approval and is a matter of public record?

Panacea

January 26, 2010 - 2:56 pm EST

How do you explain the threat to have a racially motivated demonstration against Weaver on the day of the opening of the CRM, just because he asked for documents and asked uncomfortable questions?

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 3:04 pm EST

Panacea in reading the article Deena said her objection was not that public information regarding the proposal was requested, but rather "The political pressure is coming from 'private hotel special interest’ not a broad citizen/constituency." I will not speak on Deena's issue of race being a motivator, because I don't agree. I do however think that Weaver and Co. have "ulterior motives."

Das Boot

January 26, 2010 - 9:14 am EST

No new hotel. Are the other hotels around town filled to capacity? I doubt it. What the city needs is a kick in the arse. How's that for political analysis.

forusa

January 26, 2010 - 9:18 am EST

Taxpayers should be concerned about this project. After all, it is our federal tax dollars that will subsidize the financing costs of this project. Let's hope we are not going to get stuck with the cost if this project fails just as we have with countless thousands of failed mortgages. Thanks to Mike and Dennis for speaking up for all taxpayers. You might also want to check out the ways John Green has benefited from Guilford County School contracts since Deena has been on the Board of Education.

GCS Parent

January 26, 2010 - 9:23 am EST

One of the saddest things about all of this is that some really good projects that would trully benefit Greensboro never got on the list because of this poorly concieved one. And the city & county stupidity that bungled this all up will result in Greensboro likely losing the allocation all together and no project will get it. By all facts I have seen this project missed the deadline set by the state to even be considered. Nuff said! Why is the city council even considering it at all?!!! They need to state that publicly and move on. If Skip & Deena want to build a hotel they can do it the way everyone else does... private financing!!!! Let a project that has a viable plan go forward and move this one out of the way.

Another question I have... why is a neighborhood association given ownership in a commercial project that is now no longer in their neighborhood? For that matter, why would a neighborhood association get ownership in a commercial project at all? And ironically, that ownership comes with no liability for expenses. How's that look in the business plan? Maybe that's one of those questions Skip & Deena don't want asked or answered.

Brentwood

January 26, 2010 - 9:41 am EST

GCS:

This information, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and its Recovery Zone Facility bonds was available to any and all developers and investors. It was the magintude and scale of the project that allowed it be priority one within the applications submitted, by guidelines of the federal government.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search