At Steve Gill’s convention center thing, Liz Garrigan reports that restaurateur Randy Rayburn attacked Metro Councilperson Emily Evans.
He called out another panelist, project skeptic and Metro Council member Emily Evans, saying that while his businesses create jobs, “Council Lady Evans has not created any jobs in the marketplace that I’m aware of.”
So, that’s the standard? Create jobs and you get respect? By that standard, we should invite pimps and mid-level drug dealers to have a say in the convention center debate.
I guess all of us who aren’t as fortunate as Mr. Rayburn just need to learn our place and do what he says, because, unlike most of us, he creates jobs. You know, unless you count the people who eat at his restaurants and pay the salaries of those people whose jobs he “created,” without whom he’d have no business and no ability to create jobs.
I’d just mention that Evans’s money spends and spends in Rayburn’s restaurants.
You’d think, in this economy, he wouldn’t want to alienate customers.
And this part is weird, too. Rayburn accuses Evans of opposing the convention center because she wants to use her opposition of the convention center as a springboard for a run for mayor.
At the same time that proponents of the convention center are acting like the convention center is so popular and it’s just a couple of worry-warts who are standing in the way, Rayburn seems to be saying that opposing the convention center is popular enough among Nashvillians that holding that stance could launch a mayoral run.
So, which is it?
And lastly, is it really that weird that Gaylord would be involved in this debate? I’ve been saying since this summer that it was obvious that the proponents of the convention center wanted to compete with Gaylord for convention business.
So now they’re outraged that the business people at Gaylord are attempting to protect their business interests? And these people run around claiming to be great businessmen themselves?
And I still don’t understand why, if so many businesspeople around town think this is a good idea, they don’t put their own money into it.
Ha, you know, at this point, I’d really be fine with there being a new convention center if the leading proponents and the media agreed to a deal where, whenever the convention center was mentioned in a news story, folks like Rayburn were named.
If it turns out to be a great thing for the city, Rayburn and his friends would continually get credit–“MCC, whose biggest advocate was Randy Rayburn, did eleven billion dollars worth of business this year!” If it turns out to not be as popular as promised and if it costs local taxpayers money, then Rayburn should face that association as well.
But I’m more thinking that the MCC will go up. It will do middlingly well, though not as well as promised because we live in the age of the internet. And life will go on. Few people will remember who stood for it or against it.