More nonsense about reviving the convention center

Remember when the key to improving the city's convention business was getting a convention center hotel?

"A task force of dozens of architects, community leaders and tourism officials is recommending that city government provide a $100-million subsidy to attract a new downtown hotel that officials believe is critical to the success of the expanded Los Angeles Convention Center." LAT, Nov. 20, 1992

"Most everyone agrees that the convention center suffers from the lack of quality hotel rooms within walking distance. As a result, many city officials are eager to move ahead with a 1,200-room hotel that would be built next to the convention center using public subsidies available through the council's newly approved redevelopment area." LAT, May 20, 2002

"For more than two decades, city business leaders have complained that the lack of a major hotel next door had made the Los Angeles Convention Center undesirable for events that can attract tens of thousands of out-of-town visitors. San Francisco, San Diego and Anaheim all have large hotels next to their convention halls and consistently attract more meeting business than Los Angeles." LAT, July 14, 2004

Okay, so now there's not one, but two convention center hotels - and convention business in L.A. is in such bad shape that the center's general manager told a council committee hearing that without upgrades "we are going to be out of this business in the next ten years." This is likely to emerge as an argument for building a downtown NFL stadium that can also be used as an adjunct to the convention center. And it's just nonsensical enough for the hapless mayor and City Council to sign off on (with the help of a few campaign donations, no doubt). Given the center's tortured history, does anyone really believe that L.A. will ever be more than a second-tier convention city?