The cost of a Tourist or Convention

Rick Orlov writes this weekend about the Valley getting its share of TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) levied by the City. Councilwoman Wendy Greuel spoke out saying that the $600,000 generated in the Valley should be allocated to the San Fernando Valley Conference and Visitors Bureau, which is currently operated by the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley. This would be in addition to the funding that LA, Inc. receives. (They promote themselves as "The Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau" [my italics].)

Two things to note...

First, it's interesting that this article comes out the day the Greuel is being honored as a "leader of the Valley" by the same organization seeking the funding at their annual fundraiser.

Second, what about all the other Convention and Visitors Bureaus that operate in the City of L.A. in support of their particular jurisdiction? Should they get the allocation of their funds separately from that of LA, Inc.'s funding. I guess the bigger question is: Does LA, Inc. utilize their $7.6 million allocation in the best interest of the City and its varied communities?

I wonder, does San Pedro, Hollywood, Chinatown, Venice, Downtownetc. need to have their money given to them for further self-promotion and attraction of visitors? I'm not saying the Valley shouldn't get its fair share of taxes generated, but I question the rationale behind funding LA, Inc. if they can't do the job they are supposed to be doing. If they were, then why would all these other CVBs have to work so hard without funding to do what LA, Inc. should be doing?

A few examples:

On their website, LA, Inc. lists only 4 Valley communities under their "Neighborhoods"” out of the over 20 that exist there; and for each one listed, only a handful of things to do are presented. Based on that, why would anyone want to visit the Valley?

The same is true for Beach Cities, only Venice is listed (no Palisades, San Pedro, Dockweiler, Mar Vista, Palms, etc.). Later, if you go 2 levels down, San Pedro has itineraries on the CruiseLA portal of the site, but not linked to the Neighborhood Itineraries where the rest of them are. Then, to get to "“things to do in San Pedro,"” you have to click on a link that takes you to the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce site. Maybe the funding should go there, instead of LA, Inc?

So, if you want to see arts in LA, their website has an "“Arts" section which suggests the usuals: LACMA, Getty, etc. But no mention of the NoHo Arts District, the Artists District downtown, the Brewery, Gallery Row, or San the Pedro Art Walks to name a few local arts scenes.

The site'’s "“On the Edge"” section has some great suggestions, but they are buried in text that is incongruous for the non-native to really comprehend. It would be frustrating to try to follow these itineraries, even though some decent places are listed.

This is definitely an issue that needs further investigation by the City. Don't even look to our neighbors of West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, or Long Beach to see how effective their CVBs are. (I purposely did not link to them because the services they providbureauour bureua to shame; I mean, Beverly Hills has guided shopping tours through their visitors bureau!)

What could are millions of dollars going to a Tourism Bureau that can't even help the locals and their parents?


(and to put it all in perspective, look what was done to attract visitors in 1915.)