By the Heral'd own example, Olympia on its own couldn't afford to build a convention center. We would never be able to build a legislative building either, but we have one because we're the state capital. A convention center would benefit the city in terms of our role as the seat of government for the state. Simply making your state capital more capable of hosting larger events makes state government more effecient.

I lived in Oregon's capital city, Salem, for the past 12 years. Like Olympia, our city leaders decided that we needed a convention center. They decided not to put the issue to a vote because they KNEW they would lose.

Originally slated as an $18 million project, the cost has almost doubled. And now that the lovely building has been built (public-private venture), they are having trouble convincing out-of-towners to book it.

Why come to Salem when people can go to Eugene or Portland? I would envision the same problem for Olympia when conventioneers can go to Tacoma or Seattle.

Because the Salem project was a public-private venture, profit has become the driving force. Local groups can't even afford to hold meetings or conventions in their own damn community/convention center because the price is too steep!

The adjoining private hotel is not receiving the kind of occupancy numbers that were listed in their gaudy projections and -- who knows? -- may go belly up. If that occurs, the City of Salem will be left with most of the bills, an empty hotel and a shiny monolith in the center of town.