When was it decided that the Republican National Convention of 2004
would be held in New York City?  Which mayor put in the bid to be
considered?

horse7452,

New York City was chosen as the sight for the Republican National
Convention on January 31,2003.  From the offical RNC website:

"The city was selected by a unanimous vote of the Republican National
Committee's 165 members because New York offered the best package of
goods and services. These include the Convention complex, hotels,
venues and Convention funding, to name a few.

The Convention brings many benefits to New York. New jobs will be
created, millions in new economic activity will be generated, and well
over 50,000 visitors will come to New York to experience everything
the city has to offer - many for their very first time."

2004 Republican National Convention-FAQ
http://www.2004nycgop.org/2004nycgop_contents/delegates/faq.shtml

The Republican National Committee considered 3 cities, New York,
Tampa-St. Petersburg and New Orleans, for the 2004 RNC.  Boston and
Miami submitted proposals and were not chosen for site visits.  Kansas
City, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, San Antoinio,
Detroit, Seattle, Milwaukee, Denver, Cincinnati, Phoenix, Orlando, Los
Angeles, Nashville and Charlotte all were sent the Request for
Proposal for the RNC, but removed themselves for contention for
various reasons.

The RFP was sent to these cities on March 18th, 2002 and cities had to
have their bids into the Selection Committee no later than June 17th,
2002. At that time, Michael Bloomberg was the Mayor of New York.

Thanks for your question and if you need any additional clarification,
please let me know.

Regards,

-THV

Search Strategy:
"New York City" chosen for 2004 national convention committee
"New York City" chosen for 2004 national convention

References:
Conventions
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/chrnconv.html
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/convs/rsiteselect.html

Hi horse,

While that may be the RNC's official reason for selecting NYC as the
site of the convention, it is likely that the real reason (remember,
these are politicians) is that NYC was the site of the September 11th
attacks and holding the convention there represents an opportunity to
exploit this situation and further affirm President Bush's role as a
so-called "war president."  It's called "politics."

The RNC said that "the Convention brings many benefits to New York.
New jobs will be created, millions in new economic activity will be
generated."  Unfortunately, these these benefits never materialized. 
You can read about in the newspaper or online.

Actually, it is worth searching through the results to see what impact
it had.  According to a study done by the Beacon Hill Institute for
Economics at Boston's Suffolk University, the RNC brought a net gain
of $154 million to the NYC area.  The same group initially
projectected the DNC would cause a net loss for Boston, but it ended
up with a net gain of $14 million.
(http://www.beaconhill.org/Conventionupdate.8.27.pdf)

Also, according to an interview with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg on
NewsRadio WCBS's program 'Ask the Mayor', he confirmed that both
parties had entered negotiations to hold their conventions in New
York; however, the Democrats demanded exclusivity, while the
Republicans didn't.  Thus, the RNC was held in NYC.

Oh - sorry; URL for the Bloomberg quote on the Democrats wish to hold
the convention in NYC as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-30-bloomberg_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

The point is that the RNC has never been held there.  This is for good
reason too:  NYC is a city which traditionally votes for Democrats. 
As I said, it's politics as usual.