While we welcome commentary on our city, a recent editorial was misleading (“Oversight of Visit Anaheim is wise, but the city should just scrap all subsidies instead,” Dec. 26).
The editorial used our recent discussion of tourism marketing oversight to bring out a well-worn trope about “subsidies.”
Problem is, there are no subsidies in Anaheim’s tourism marketing. It’s just the opposite — hotels tax themselves to fund tourism marketing by Visit Anaheim.
You would think those opposed to subsidies would applaud the fact that the private sector is raising its own funding for tourism marketing, with the city then benefiting from the resulting visitor revenue.
When the self-assessment was created in 2010, it relieved the city of Anaheim of paying $6 million in yearly public funding for tourism marketing.
Yes, Anaheim does have tax rebates in place for some hotels. Those inclined can call that a subsidy. We call that a good investment as we are seeing revenue from upscale hotels that wouldn’t have been built otherwise, with money going to benefit Anaheim residents.
But that’s another matter.
The Register’s concern about subsidies is understandable and even appreciated. But that concern is undermined when the term is thrown about lightly.
Natalie Meeks
Anaheim City Council
District 6
Leave a Reply