Friday, February 16, 2007

Hotels Hotels Everywhere - And Not A Place To Stay

This year the California State Democratic Party will convene in San Diego in late April. I've heard rumors that hotels designated for delegates are surprisingly far from the convention center. I can't confirm that yet because it's too late at night for me to google it up or ping anyone on IM to tell me. (Lazy blogger tonight = well-rested blogger tomorrow.) I can, however, confirm that the hotel designated for the media sounds thoroughly inconvenient:

The [hotel] is located approximately six miles from the Convention Center – about a 20-minute cab ride. The [hotel] does not offer shuttle service to the Convention Center, however there are sometimes taxis on site or the hotel will call one for you when needed. Because there is a huge optometrist convention that same weekend, there are not a lot of choices if you wish to stay closer to the Convention Center.
CDP staff is stuck at the same hotel. A six-mile, 20 minute cab ride sounds pricey to me. But I can't help chuckling at the optometrist convention showdown looming ahead. There's a joke somewhere in that little factoid, no? Anyone care to find it? Can't see one? Ha! Can't SEE one? See what I did there? Ha! I did it again.


Anonymous said...

The reason for this quandary is because of the silly policy of staying only at union hotels. Most of the hotels downtown are non-union, and those that are union were way too expensive to expect anyone to pay for, or were booked well in advance for other events. If the party could come to grips with any sort of non-union arrangement this would not be an issue at all.

Also, the Party is providing free shuttles - I think that is more than adequate to remedy this in the most acceptable way to Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Well, that sounds familiar.

Here's my gripe then, however: if the reason really is a shortage of union hotels next to the convention center (there has to be at least one, right? someone? anyone? give me one . . . .), then why are we having the convention in San Diego to begin with?

I know, I know: it's a growing area - and a place where Reeps are making headway (didn't the newly elected GOP CA chair get there by starting to gain ground in SD?), so we should be present there. And it's an attractive city - so more people will show up.

My problem: if we're willing to make the effort to shuttle people around in a non-union friendly area, why not meet in the freakin' Central Valley? No, I don't want to go to Fresno or Bakersfield (which is pretty souther-central) or wherever - but I also don't think the area will unionize on its own.

Nor - dare I say it - are union politics the sole issue on which our party is focused.

Or shouldn't be anyway - though unions are vastly important and vital to our economy and to employee and consumer protection, etc etc.

But look, there won't be union hotels if we don't show up. And we won't win more Central Valley voters if we don't show up.

So my advice has been and always will be: either find a way to do it with RVs and tents or unionized smaller hotesl, or suck it the hell up and place our collective eyes firmly on the collective prize: millions of potential votes in a growing, politically unstable and changeable region.

Or at least skip SD next time because it's too f-ing far to drive and I hate being forced to fly.

Anonymous said...

I am amused to hear that the Dems are forced to expend a lot of effort, gas and pollution in order to attend their convention, because of their union-sensitive mandate.

Meanwhile, I walked to the state Republican convention from a non-convention hotel near the Capitol. Almost everyone I know who attended stayed within walking distance of the location.

The irony is fun.

Anonymous said...

What irony? How is it ironic? When we meet in Sacramento - we too can walk from hotel to convention center: in even fewer steps since we occupy the union-friendly, far nicer Sheraton. Hell, I think it's a safe bet that the hotel was mostly built because of the waiting Demo market share.

It may be annoying to some, or seen a either very-necessary or very-unnecessary to others - but I don't think it's ironic - I think each scenario is pretty par for the respective party.