Should we raise the limit to $125, then?

Lets see what the organizers have come up with - we discussed at the beginning of this that below $100 was strongly preferred, so I know everyone's been cost-conscious in looking at options. In some places, it's going to be more feasible than others, but let's see what we've got.

I didn't realize the rule was that ALL the hotel options HAD to be under $100. For me, it'd be great if there were cheaper options that I could weigh other positives and negatives against but I still want to see what else the point people have found. Especially since the price of the hotel isn't going to matter whatsoever to the peeps that are able to score floor space with the locals (SF or Seattle).

Why have I never said wicked pissy before? FTR, my co-workers are going to hear it come out of my mouth quite a bit today.

Given that the last two hotels we used were all over $109/night or more excluding hotel taxes, I would think that proposals for $99/night excluding taxes are still an improvement and we should include them.

Perhaps the rule should be that at least one hotel per city is under $99/night, preferably all of them.

My fear with that, Vortex, is that the other hotels will be shinier enough that the will of the group will be to go with someplace more expensive.

In this case, I'm very concerned about the rights of the minority, even at the expense of a bit of the will of the majority, since it is the difference between someone being able to attend or not vs. shininess of accomidations.

I'm all for finding a place that's a bit cheaper than what we've had for the last couple of years, but $100 including taxes is too low of a maximum in my opinion. Was your intention that the $100 be all inclusive, Debet?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I think that $100 a night in a major city is a farfetched expectation given all of the amenities that we want. Maybe I'm just judging by DC standards, and I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it's very limiting.

It does seem unlikely that under $100 and high speed/wireless internet connection in every room will go together. But that's just my Boston/Cambridge experience.

My feeling is that for the absolute max cost of a hotel room (especially with the amenities that are being requested) to stay under $100, we'd need to be looking at places like, I don't know, San Jose or Atascadero.

I like Vortex's idea. And if a $89 a night hotel (probably without the amenities) is close in proximity to a $119 a night hotel, people that aren't sticklers for a wireless connection in their room could stay there.

Does any of that make sense? I need coffee.