Requirement to close 15000 hotel rooms

[Newsy]

SCAMA will be buying up these debts, so no need to worry.

NAMA/SCAMA is like a broom, sweeping up all the crap that a small part of this society got itself in to.

There are days when I could vomit over the absolute and utter incompetence of this Government.

[stanley]

Bacon's great idea is to close down the hotels, but allow the investors keep their tax breaks.

About as great as some of his earlier ideas (exaccerbated by the ability of FF with their reverse-midas touch everything they do!)

Wonder if Bacon's mates Sean Mulryan of Ballymore and scumdog Frank Fahey have invested in hotels or could they be looking for distressed property assets.

[KingKane]

I’m afraid I don’t agree with this idea; I think its superficially good, but worthless in practice. Its marginally better that the daft idea canvassed a while back about using hotels as replacement schools. But it has the same essential failing. Are the surplus hotel rooms actually going to be located where you need them? I mean really, not just an airhead cry of ‘Of course, there are hotels All Over The Country’. I mean are the surplus beds actually located where you anticipate having a group of elderly folk in need of step-down accommodation or, like our surplus housing stock, are they concentrated in places where there is no actual need to accommodate anyone.

We have allegedly 15,000 surplus beds and somewhere in the region of 900 people who are what is termed bed blockers. Would all of the 15,000 beds be located at inaccessible places? I'd doubt it. Fact is there is almost certainly a surplus in many of the major urban centres as the low-low prices for bed nights would attest to and those are also the place where most of the hospitals are. And so the old people are currently in those centres.

Also, any scheme involving the Government coming in with money for hoteliers, in any form, will clearly be abused.Could you outline the financial analysis you undertook before feeling confident enough to commit this statement to the permanent record. You don’t have to give us too much detail. I’m not expecting you to set out the staffing rosters you worked out, just the overall cost.

I'm suggesting short term leases, at market rates. Fact is we could let the companies that own the hotels go under for all I care, but we should take the opportunity to make use of the buildings to address what is a ongoing problem. As for my financial analysis, you can try reading some of the cost associated with providing an acute bed and then come back to me with your reasons for why altering hotel rooms to provide non-acute beds could be remotely the same?

I’m also not entirely clear about the relevance of the comparison to co-located hospitals. I may be misunderstanding, but I thought co-location was about putting a private acute hospital on the same campus as public hospitals. I don't see how that has anything to do with the provision of step-down beds. Have we crossed lines? Are we talking about two different things? I agree that our costs need to come way down, but we can be too quick to write ourselves off at the same time.

The stated intent behind the collocation of private hospitals with public hospital was to free up beds in the public hospital system that are currently used by private patients. Listen to any of the minister's speech about it, she said again and again that this was her aim. The aim of this is similar free up acute beds in the hospital system, and it can happen much quicker and much cheaper than the tax right offs for the construction of the collocated hospitals. If we free up 500 beds by this means and reduced the need for a number of the collocated hospitals think of the saving to the exchequer in tax that doesn't have to be foregone. After all, collocation was about providing a good health service at a reasonable cost? Wasn't it?

[cyberianpan]

According to Peter Bacon - over 15000 hotel rooms need to be decommissioned to avoid total meltdown in the hospitality industry.

Hotels 'facing insolvency' | BreakingNews.ie

Yet another of the pillars of the Celtic tiger years comes tumbling down

15000 hotel rooms - how many jobs does that translate into?

There's gonna be more & more people going on the dole

The government can't afford it & the rent supplements

We should put these spare buildings to good use, especially the ones in nice remote rural locations:

[SIZE="4"]Put the poor into communes ?[/SIZE]

cYp

[Quinn Quinn]

There's gonna be more & more people going on the dole

The government can't afford it & the rent supplements

We should put these spare buildings to good use, especially the ones in nice remote rural locations:

[SIZE="4"]Put the poor into communes ?[/SIZE]

cYp

please use correct font or I will report you

[hammer]

Appoint Kevin Costner to Bord Failte

"If we build it, they will come"

Bail out the hotel investors - what an inspired piece of rubbish. Bail out the wealthy !!
Subsidise the hotel operator might be better so that they can retain jobs.

[Marcos the black]

The typical break even point for a newly built hotel is 5 years, so closing down now for any built in the last 5 years will mean a big debt writedown. Who will take up the slack?

Are you nuts?? More like 15 to 20 years, operating at 70% occ. rates... The debt writedown is even bigger than you think..

[Schuhart]

We have allegedly 15,000 surplus beds and somewhere in the region of 900 people who are what is termed bed blockers. Would all of the 15,000 beds be located at inaccessible places? I'd doubt it. Fact is there is almost certainly a surplus in many of the major urban centres as the low-low prices for bed nights would attest to and those are also the place where most of the hospitals are. And so the old people are currently in those centres.

Tbh, that sounds too flimsy an analysis. I don't see any particular reason why the location of the 15,000 surplus beds has to relate in any way to where we need to locate the 900 people. I think you're also forgetting that the acute hospital location is unsuitable - so just because someone happens to be in a hospital in location X doesn't mean that a hotel bed somewhere in the same town is just right for them.

So, no, I think you're just too hypnotised by the vacant hotel space. There's no particular reason why that vacant hotel space should be of use to anyone, and we certainly shouldn't get into the business of inventing tenuous reasons why a tax-funded public service could locate there.

I'm suggesting short term leases, at market rates. Fact is we could let the companies that own the hotels go under for all I care, but we should take the opportunity to make use of the buildings to address what is a ongoing problem.

Why? Why the compelling need to invent a reason to weigh down the taxpayer?

As for my financial analysis, you can try reading some of the cost associated with providing an acute bed and then come back to me with your reasons for why altering hotel rooms to provide non-acute beds could be remotely the same?

So, as I suspected, you've made no real attempt to substantiate your statement at all. It just looked nice on the page, so you ran with it.

The gaping hole in your argument is that the comparison isn't between the cost of an acute bed and the cost of your putative hotel bed (you know, the cost that you didn't even bother trying to work out.) Its between the cost of a normal step down bed and your convoluted hotel bed idea.

The stated intent behind the collocation of private hospitals with public hospital was to free up beds in the public hospital system that are currently used by private patients. Listen to any of the minister's speech about it, she said again and again that this was her aim. The aim of this is similar free up acute beds in the hospital system, and it can happen much quicker and much cheaper than the tax right offs for the construction of the collocated hospitals. If we free up 500 beds by this means and reduced the need for a number of the collocated hospitals think of the saving to the exchequer in tax that doesn't have to be foregone. After all, collocation was about providing a good health service at a reasonable cost? Wasn't it?

I'm not convinced that you're right here. Yes, co-location is about freeing up public beds for public patients. But that's a different issue to bed blockers, who are people who should not be in an acute bed at all. The folk who would be catered for in the private hospital would be private patients in need of an acute bed.

I'm not sure you've quite understood the hospital bed issues. The public/private bed issue that co-location was meant to address is tied up with stuff like consultants doing public and private work, and private patients getting priority within the system. That's a different set of issues to bed blockers. I mean, there would be no point in shifting bed blockers out if the vacated bed was then filled by a consultant's private patient.

NB, I'm not particularly a support of co-location, just in case anyone mistakes this description for advocacy. I'm just setting this out because I think this hotel idea is superficial and of no practical use, and based on a confused picture of the issues.

[eyeswideopen]

The sad news is that a lot of the profits from the profitable part of the construction boom were mopped up in this kind of nonsense.

I wonder if any of these hotels are counted as collateral against bad NAMA debt.

[Christel]

According to Peter Bacon - over 15000 hotel rooms need to be decommissioned to avoid total meltdown in the hospitality industry.

Hotels 'facing insolvency' | BreakingNews.ie

Yet another of the pillars of the Celtic tiger years comes tumbling down

15000 hotel rooms - how many jobs does that translate into?

I look forward to read more from the report. He must have suggestions on how to close these rooms. Turning the keys will not be the solution I suppose.

I also hope the report contains an analysis as to what amount of these surplus hotel rooms came into being because of tax incentive schemes created by the government.