• News Ticker alerts

Host Hotels and Resorts has filed the official statement for its most recent quarter. It indicates that San Diego's Papa Doug Manchester didn't clean up on the March 17 sale of the Manchester Grand Hyatt to Host.

According to information in Host's quarterly report, Host paid $566 million in cash to Manchester for the 1625-room hotel. But $403 million was for repayment of existing loans.

Host issued $6 million of stock equivalents to Manchester. His company, Manchester Grand Resorts, got $99.5 million of preferred stock equivalents. But Manchester also gave a $99.5 million note to Host.

Manchester receives slightly more interest from preferred dividends than Host gets from the note.

All told, Manchester appears to have gotten around $169 million, although he certainly would have had legal and administrative expenses that would have lowered that figure. I put questions to Manchester's company and got no response.

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

Visduh June 22, 2011 @ 7:33 p.m.

In an economy like the one we are now experiencing, Doug may have done well to get anything. Don't know about you, but if I could corral $169 million less some expenses and then ride off into the sunset of bachelorhood, at age 70, I'd think I'd done well!

0

Don Bauder June 22, 2011 @ 7:45 p.m.

It would be interesting to try to figure whether Manchester made or lost money on that hotel. It's a privately-held company that doesn't give information. His big stake in NextWave Wireless has come down sharply. But I am sure he can keep break on the table. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell June 22, 2011 @ 7:48 p.m.

The $169 million may well have been totally offset by operating losses generated during the period Papa Doug owned the hotel. The hotel could have been losing as much as $20 million per year, maybe more. The hotel could have generated a combined operating loss for all years approaching $100 million. Nobody knows for sure. Papa Doug likely broke even at best. It's hard to see how the hotel could have made money, not with $403 million in debt. The interest cost alone assuming a 5% interest rate would total $20 million per year. It is also likely that Papa Doug had to use most of the money to pay his ex-wife off. I'm not convinced that Papa Doug came out ahead on the deal.

0

Don Bauder June 22, 2011 @ 8:05 p.m.

I agree with you that there were heavy expenses involved in the deal itself. And heavy operating losses in recent years would not surprise me. Most hotels built downtown within the last few years are under water. Tourism was down sharply and is only coming back moderately, particularly as compared with other California destinations such as LA, San Francisco and Orange County. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 22, 2011 @ 8:34 p.m.

About all the leverage the rest of us have is to stop playing their games--and certainly not attending them or buying their trinkets. High rolling and crime--made "legal" by SCOTUS and other "decisions" by the injustice system--are cozy bedfellows.

We, the People, are the enablers.

0

Don Bauder June 23, 2011 @ 5:55 a.m.

Your criticism of SCOTUS is justified. The current court has been bought and paid for by big business. Of course, that's true of federal, state and local politicians, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 23, 2011 @ 12:06 p.m.

We are the enablers in the sense that we pick the politicians who in turns pick the regulators -- all of whom are complicit in the white collar crimes. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 23, 2011 @ 9:20 a.m.

Support your LOCAL capitalists (who are not chains). Pay more, maybe, but get much, much more.

Otherwise, be a CHEAPSKATE! Don't "shop." Don't buy junk, defective stuff. Get by with little. Entertain each other. Play football in the park. Baseball too.

That is, STOP being MANIPULATED!!!

0

Don Bauder June 23, 2011 @ 12:15 p.m.

For many decades, the American economy has been based on consumption. This escalated with Keynesian economics in the 1930s and escalated again in the 1980s as American corporations massively sent manufacturing to low- and slave-wage nations abroad. Now consumption is more than 70% of our economy, and consumer debt has spiraled out of control. That is one of the bases of our economic megrims. Yet our leaders want to cure excessive debt with even more excessive debt. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 23, 2011 @ 2:27 p.m.

Consumption is one thing; OVERCONSUMPTION quite another. If you keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, pretty soon you'll have no Peter. THEN what?

0

Psycholizard June 23, 2011 @ 2:28 p.m.

Manchester certainly had his way with our local politicians. Even after the Oceanside fiasco, where he forced that impoverished town to pay him for the stuff that dreams are made of, governments keep considering his overblown schemes. These monster hotels ruin the character of our city.

Thanks to years of effort by local activists, our coastal suburbs have restrictions that control size, and keep buildings human scale. Downtown is controlled by CCDC and the Port Authority, with the Navy also turning developer. These unelected entities seem to love big buildings, and big developers.

I hope Manchester leaves town completely. May I suggest Texas?

0

Don Bauder June 23, 2011 @ 8:02 p.m.

I agree that hotels should not be subsidized by governments, particularly impoverished governments. I feel the same way about shopping centers, condo buildings, sports palaces for billionaire team owners. I believe they should be constructed with private capital, and governments should stick to their primary task of providing basic services such as water, sewer, roads, schools, etc. In the eyes of the San Diego business community, this makes me a radical -- perhaps a socialist. Sorry, I do not believe that corporate welfare is consistent with capitalistic principles. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 June 24, 2011 @ 12:34 a.m.

Downtown is controlled by CCDC and the Port Authority, with the Navy also turning developer. These unelected entities seem to love big buildings, and big developers.

The CCDC is really just an extenion of Big Developers, and they have been giving away the farm to their developer buddies in sweetheart deals- at the expense of the poor and middle class, and all other taxpayers.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 8:06 a.m.

You are absolutely correct. Centre City Development Corp. (CCDC) exists to line the pockets of big developers -- stealing money from schools and directing money away from needy neighborhoods in the process. CCDC should have been eliminated years ago. But it still has the city council in its pocket. Downtown is not blighted; it needs no more redevelopment money, especially as the infrastructure rots and outlying neighborhoods decay. But San Diego's culture is based entirely on one thing: money. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 23, 2011 @ 2:41 p.m.

Not only are they un-elected, they are completely UNACCOUNTABLE. They answer to NO ONE, not even the legislature. We may have to resort to the initiative process or get shot in the streets, depending, I suspect, on how long we put off action. Ask the Libyans.

0

Don Bauder June 23, 2011 @ 8:05 p.m.

Jerry Brown appears to be attempting to eliminate the redevelopment agencies which directly steal money from schools to subsidize multi-millionaires and billionaires. Is Brown really serious? I hope so. Will he succeed? The Republicans, who consider themselves capitalists, are trying to thwart him; they want their massive subsidies. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 June 24, 2011 @ 12:35 a.m.

Jerry Brown appears to be attempting to eliminate the redevelopment agencies which directly steal money from schools to subsidize multi-millionaires and billionaires.

They NEED to GO!

I think Jerry Clown will win this fight.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 8:07 a.m.

I certainly hope that you are right -- that Brown succeeds in eliminating the redevelopment agencies. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 June 24, 2011 @ 4:43 p.m.

They needed to go years ago-they are just an extension of Big Business ripping off taxpayers.

0

Don Bauder June 23, 2011 @ 7:57 p.m.

Response to Twister's post of 2:27 p.m.: Overconsumption can lead to grave consequences. I certainly wouldn't want to be that fellow Paul with no Peter. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 23, 2011 @ 8:45 p.m.

Goldwasser is spinning in his tomb over these grave offenses:

"The Republicans, who consider themselves capitalists, are trying to thwart him; they want their massive subsidies. Best, Don Bauder"

As the song says, "I got a hole in my Perot; I can't go see my gal . . ."

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 8:11 a.m.

Yes, today's subsidy-based capitalism has nothing in common with Adam Smith's ideas of a free market, championed by Goldwater. Today's so-called capitalists are corporate socialists. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 23, 2011 @ 8:49 p.m.

Re: Bauder comment about Paul: That's because he was an overperformer--but he still can't parade around, even in his uniform. At least not in inSANe DIEGO.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 8:23 a.m.

Paul won't be an overperformer without assistance from his Peter. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell June 23, 2011 @ 8:53 p.m.

If you keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, pretty soon you'll have no Peter. THEN what?

================

Duke Cunningham asks himself that same question every day.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 8:25 a.m.

Is Duke Cunningham cerebrally capable of such introspection? Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 24, 2011 @ 1:48 a.m.

We are being forced into impoverishment. To transform into frugality would seem a bargain compared to the consequences.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 8:35 a.m.

And the impoverishment of the lower 85% of Americans is a result of the huge wealth and income growth of the upper 1 to 5%. This destruction of the middle class is one of the major factors in our societal decline. Best, Don Bauder

0

Altius June 24, 2011 @ 10:04 a.m.

Jerry Brown appears to be attempting to eliminate the redevelopment agencies which directly steal money from schools to subsidize multi-millionaires and billionaires.

==========================

I agree that redevelopment agencies have outlived their usefulness and have, in many cases, devolved into a feeding trough for developers. But I'm surprised that a guy as sharp as Don Bauder would resort to the kind of campaign-slogan oversimplification I quote above. Would there be more tax money for schools and libraries if the Gaslamp -- a redevelopment project -- were still a sh!thole of brothels, dive bars, and last-stop hotels? Of course not. Thriving businesses and the people they employ pay taxes which fund schools and libraries.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 2:54 p.m.

You are quoting the argument that redevelopment touts always use: the tax receipts from redevelopment fund schools and libraries. But the tax receipts too often go back into the same redevelopment district for the same purposes: subsidization of developers who should be paying for their legacy projects with private funds. Ultimately, that money comes out of the schools and the county. At least, we agree on the main point: redevelopment agencies have outlived their usefulness. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 24, 2011 @ 4:28 p.m.

Ready--FIRE--aim!

"We" grossly, if not grandly, underestimate the power, the STAYING power of lies oft-repeated that transmogriflie into presumed fact.

The future of news--papers and otherwise, is in continuously keeping us up to date and referencing/identifying sources. Even notice how quickly interest is dropped right here in Reader City? Fix THAT!

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 6:49 p.m.

You are restating an old axiom: a lie repeated often enough becomes fact in the public's eye. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 24, 2011 @ 4:38 p.m.

If we don't start actually DOING something NOW, we WILL have to storm the Bastille. Let us make figurative heads roll--or our real ones will.

0

Don Bauder June 24, 2011 @ 6:50 p.m.

"Our" heads will roll? Or "their" heads will roll? Critical difference. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 24, 2011 @ 8:09 p.m.

This time, for a change, I did not err in my statement. I repeat, the choice is to lop off the figurative heads with widespread, highly-focused action--and soon. If we wait until some Godoffy reigns for forty years, our heads will roll.

Look at it as Machiavelli might; or my grandma: "A stitch in time saves nine.

0

Don Bauder June 25, 2011 @ 8:01 a.m.

The key is that word "figurative." Better to lop heads metaphorically than in reality -- at least when the cops are looking. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 24, 2011 @ 8:14 p.m.

Axiomatically, I plagiarize much, and I omit much.

In Niccolo's time, "we" were reduced to leaving feces at the base of bad art in dark of night--and burned at the stake for our counter-intuitive remarks or hints . . .

0

Don Bauder June 25, 2011 @ 8:03 a.m.

Machiavelli's wisdom is as poignant today as it was in his time. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 24, 2011 @ 8:44 p.m.

Friends, blogposters, and Altius, lend me your ears; come hither whilst I whisper:

The way (re)development works is first you find the "bighted" or "undeveloped area," THEN you start sucking on the government teat. Then you get your pals at Schity Hall to rezone it from A to a provisional C and I, see, then you submit plans that are an overbuilt disaster. You throw a bone to the howlers by reducing the density and upping the parking to the size you really wanted in the first place. Then you get your subdivision map. You have paid a pittance for options, not wasted your money on an outright purchase. Lease? Maybe.

"Mission Valley" was no "valley," 'twas a RIVER; still is. You buy up some alfalfa fields, get your cronies to firm up the change in the zoning, THEN, as if that were not enough of an insult to our intelligence, you cry "flood hazard" (pi)) to the Corps (pun intended), who will dig a ditch to protect your investment (called the San Diego River CHANNEL). This is all done at taxpayer's expense, of course, because you can "demonstrate" a public benefit. Let us pray that the San Vicente dam holds.

Then you find that you have built on jelly that will turn your buildings to tombs in an earthquake. Your architect says you will have to install pumps in the basements, as rivers run underground as well as on top, even when they're not running or are reduced to a trickle on top. (Sorry, I haven't figured out how they got somebody else to pay for that, but follow the records and the morgues).

Then, when the inevitable floods come, there's always 3% gummint loans, which, of course, can be written off, not to mention the cost of rebuilding--you guessed it, right on top of the hazard. (Oh, the IRONY!)

Then, you, public spirited soul (R.I.P.) that you are, get a lot of stuff that you built and didn't build named in yer honor.

This kind of stuff is a daley occurrence.

0

Don Bauder June 25, 2011 @ 8:07 a.m.

That is a magnificent summation of what has been going on in San Diego for decades. The public doesn't figure it out because the mainstream media look the other way. They, after all, are the beneficiaries of the taxpayer largesse. Again, I stress: those who profess and claim to practice capitalism today are for the most part corporate socialists. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 25, 2011 @ 11:20 a.m.

It's a LAW of show-biz (and, to be redundant, advertising):

You ARE what your PUBLICITY says you are.

0

Don Bauder June 25, 2011 @ 3:52 p.m.

And woe to the reporter or columnist who dares to suggest that the advertiser might not be as wonderful as claimed. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell June 25, 2011 @ 11:51 a.m.

The link below shows what Mission Valley looked like in the early 1960s, just as the developers were beginning to rape it.

http://www.johnfry.com/pages/PhotoRozelle13.html

0

Don Bauder June 25, 2011 @ 3:54 p.m.

One former head of the Chamber of Commerce even said that Mission Valley was ill-planned. But that was more than 35 years ago. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 25, 2011 @ 4:07 p.m.

After many decades of dum de dumb denial, I have finally come to the conclusion that the bulk of the population meets the definition of psycho. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the American Psychiatric Association has banned the term as "unscientific" (read: politically incorrect). If that ain't irony, you can kiss my Aspidistra.

0

Don Bauder June 25, 2011 @ 8:57 p.m.

Those we used to call psychopaths are now called sociopaths. Is that what you mean? Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 25, 2011 @ 9:16 p.m.

A turd is a turd is a turd. (Apologies to Gertie)

0

Don Bauder June 26, 2011 @ 12:25 p.m.

On the topic of Gertrude Stein, we must repeat the great limerick (of which there are several variations):

There once was a family named Stein With three children: Ep, Gert & Ein Ep's statues are junk Gert's poems are bunk And nobody understands Ein

0

Twister June 26, 2011 @ 2:19 p.m.

One of the most treasured books in my "collection" is one "written" in the thirties by a very wealthy woman who was a big wheel the CA Republican party. It had to do with the lady's life on a ranch in the Southwest.

I bought it from Magee's bookstore in San Francisco, largely because I knew the ghost-writer and there was a note, signed by the "author" to Magee tipped in: "Oh, FAME is so short-lived."

The back-story on this is that she had hired a highly talented but ego-less young woman to write it for her. She paid a pittance to the young Berkeley-grad, but wrote her a note thanking her for the fine "typing job" she had done on the manuscript. The book won a big ($$$) prize, and the "author" went on to write another, this time by herself. It flopped.

Both of these ladies are deceased, and this is the first time this story has seen the light of day. But the first is in the history books, while the other is "only" lovingly remembered by lots of family and friends, who are all much better for having known her.

For some reason the limerick reminded me of this story; I guess I've flipped into the story phase of life (or has it always been one of my most notorious character-flaws?)

You are, as they say, (in terms of fame) what your publicity says you are, but the "content of your character," now that's something quite different.

0

Don Bauder June 26, 2011 @ 2:46 p.m.

That's a wonderful story. Did people who reviewed the second book note that it was not as well written as the first prize-winner? What happened to that ego-less Berkeley grad? Did she go on to great things? Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 26, 2011 @ 6:57 p.m.

Well, I talked to a friend and fellow bookseller of Magee's and told him the story. He said "That figures. ___ ___ had a mountainous ego. He had read the second book and said that it was obviously not written by the same person." But you have given me an idea--I don't know that I'll read the two books together, but I might try to find some contemporary reviews.

The ego-less Berkeley grad did go on to do "great things," including being a reporter and publisher of a newspaper in a tiny town, then worked quietly behind the scenes at City Hall to support her family, still typing, despite crippled hands, with never a murmur of complaint, the agony and the ecstasy sans the publicity. She showed me the way away from egocentrism, that my intellect could be either wasted or developed, with or without institutionalization, and I'm still working on both. I never caught her bragging, even subtly. Yes, she went on to the greatest of all things, pure love. But of course, she started with that.

0

Don Bauder June 27, 2011 @ 6:20 a.m.

Anybody that steers us away from egocentrism deserves laudations. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 27, 2011 @ 8 a.m.

"Anybody that steers us away from egocentrism deserves laudations. Best, Don Bauder"

I'm sure you can appreciate the irony of that.

0

Don Bauder June 27, 2011 @ 10:28 a.m.

Several decades ago, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith secretly wrote a book, "The McLandress Dimension." The gist was that a conversation revealed all you had to know about a person: set a stopwatch and see how long it takes him/her to talk about himself/herself. Everybody knew Galbraith had written it, but I don't think his authorship was ever revealed. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 27, 2011 @ 7:21 p.m.

Try this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/29/ha-joon-chang-23-things

I'm gonna get it as soon as I can . . .

It's provocative, that's for sure. I saw/heard most of his lecture via BookTV. Lecturing may not be his best talent, but you can probably find it on the website.

0

Don Bauder June 28, 2011 @ 8:48 a.m.

That's a very provocative article. Capitalism must be reformed -- no question about that. So-called free trade -- along with colossal greed -- has destroyed the U.S. manufacturing base. We have to re-think a lot of things. One of the first: we must recognize that a corporation's board is NOT only beholden to shareholders. A company has obligations to employees, to the community, to vendors, to customers. In the last three decades, companies have cared only about short term profits; they haven't grasped how the concomitant destruction of the American middle class will also destroy their own businesses long term. Unfortunately, very few think long term. The farthest out most companies think is next quarter's earnings per share. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister June 28, 2011 @ 2:17 p.m.

"Agitate, agitate, AGITATE!" --Frederick Douglass

Without agitation the Emperor's clothes just won't come clean.

0

Twister June 28, 2011 @ 10:45 p.m.

In other words, the kind of washing machine Chang needs . . .

0

Twister June 28, 2011 @ 10:47 p.m.

To paraphrase the famous Clinton staff's declaration: "It's the CULTURE, stupid!" What's more, it's the STATE of the culture.

Re: By dbauder 8:48 a.m., Jun 28, 2011

0

Sign in to comment