Archive for July, 2006

Beaujon Nation

Friday, July 28th, 2006

He’s b-a-a-a-c-k!

I’m happy to announce that Andrew will be back in Richmond tonight (Friday), reading from his great new book, Body Piercing Saved My Life: Inside the Phenomenon of Christian Rock at Chop Suey Books. The former Save Richmond co-pilot and newly-pressed debut author has a spiffy book blog up as well. The fun starts at 7PM, and Chop Suey is at 1317 West Cary Street (come early to browse those packed shelves and say hi to Ward). For more info, call 497-4705.

The event is absolutely free but you’d pay out the nose for it, believe me— you simply have to hear this man read. One thing I’ve always said: Andrew Beaujon can read his ass off!!

Seriously, go. Buy the book. Get it signed.

The Neverending Story

Wednesday, July 26th, 2006

“I think the project needs new blood, not tainted by the turmoil of the past few months” — Beverley “Booty” Armstrong, former treasurer of the Virginia Performing arts Foundation, Nov. 15, 2005

As if on cue — see yesterday’s post below — we find out about a very interesting new hire at the consulting firm responsible for overseeing the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation’s absymal planning AND “research” for the new Performing Arts Committee report.

All of you out there who expressed genuine (if misplaced) optimism that Richmond might finally be on the right track with some sort of fair and workable plan for reopening the Carpenter Center and maybe getting around to that Arts Education Center promised for the Landmark can proceed to sober up and get real. This latest game of musical chairs confirms for all that this is the same ol’ incestuous, closed-door boondoggle:

Michele Walter, Director
AMS Planning & Research Corp.

Prior to joining AMS Planning & Research in 2006, Michele Walter served as Chief Operating Officer of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation in Richmond, Virginia, where she was responsible for the implementation of a $150 million performing arts facilities master plan, which encompassed renovation and operation of seven theatres in four locations and served more than a dozen arts organizations. Key responsibilities for that organization included coordination of the development team (architects, acousticians, contractor, etc.), planning for all operational aspects of the venues as they come on-line, engagement of the community at large, and financial management and planning.

Is it time to contact the Commonwealth’s Attorney yet?

Oh really?

Monday, July 24th, 2006

When Save Richmond accuses the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s editorial page of being “intellectually dishonest,” we are referring to stuff like this latest bit of selective propaganda, which makes the argument (again) for the viability of taxpayer-funded downtown arts centers:

Miami is preparing to open a downtown performing arts center. Even before inaugural performances slated for October, the multi-venue complex has sparked a building boom.

The numbers exceed expectations. Civic Strategies reports that while studies projected the center would generate economic activity resulting in 5,000 housing units in 25 years, 13,000 units already are planned. The center is a catalyst for renewal.

We’ll let Snoopy from River City Rapids take it from here and administer both the truth of the matter and the righteous beat down:

What [the T-D editorial] fails to point out is that the [Miami] arts center is more than $200 million over budget, years late, and still must compete with neighboring Broward County’s own arts center for dates and performers, so the success of the center is far from certain.

According to the Sun-Sentinel, the initial budget for the center, as approved by the Miami-Dade County Commission in 1990, was $165 million. Over the subsequent 16 years, due to design changes arising from increased expectations as well as inflation, the expected cost has grown to nearly $450 million.

That is for a three venue complex that has a 2,200 seat opera/ballet house, a 2,200 seat concert hall, and a 200 person playhouse. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

It should. The very same consultant responsible for Miami’s early estimates and rosy scenarios is also the expensive consultant that we can blame for the planning of the Virginia Performing Arts Center’s not-ready-for-prime-time project AND much of the “research” that went into the performing arts committee report.

Now don’t you think it would have been nice if the T-D editorial page had told its readers all of this. Kinda makes you wonder why they didn’t.

Could it be because the “benefits” they are eager to cite from the Miami example wouldn’t have appeared quite as, ah, beneficial with the full facts out in the open?

Now you are getting it.

Leadership, Ol’ Loup-Style

Monday, July 24th, 2006

“I’m going to support [raising the meals tax]. It is a decision I have reached after a tremendous amount of thought about all the issues — as everyone knows, I’m not sure this is how we should have funded [the performing arts center]… Things are very rapidly turning a corner [in Richmond]— Mr. City Manager, you should be commended for the work that you’ve done.” —Councilman G. Manoli Loupassi, Richmond City Council, July 2003

“We want to give them the opportunity to raise the rest [of the private fundraising money], and we are confident they will be able to do that”— Vice Mayor G. Manoli Loupassi, May 2005

“That’s why the private sector was involved to raise the money. If we just let them try to raise the money, they can raise the money.”– Vice Mayor G. Manoli Loupassi, Nov. 2005

Have you ever seen a frightened politician try to wiggle his way out of a problem that he helped to create and enable — a boondoggle that wasted piles of tax money while he sat idly by? Say hello to the “new” G. Manoli Loupassi:

“You take the performing-arts center. Before, we had strings attached and we were committing less. Now, we’re committing more and the private sector is not on the hook. What did all of that angst really get us? . . .

“I know it got $1 million off the table,” [Loupassi] added, referring to real estate investor Beverley W. “Booty” Armstrong’s decision last year to cancel his family pledges to contribute to the proposed $112 million performing-arts center on the site of the old Thalhimers’ department store on East Broad Street.

“A million dollars buys you something, doesn’t it? Maybe at least a few bricks.”

It’s laughable to suggest that “Booty” Armstrong’s pledge was a make or break deal for the VAPAF — remember that the pledge was going toward a project where the CEO was clearing more than $300,000 a year and millions were eventually wasted. [For more on "Booty"'s singular and heartfelt dedication to the performing arts, check out "Mr. Cabell's Richmond."] But “Ol’ Loup” is right about the rest of it: Richmond taxpayers really are paying more and getting less under the current insider-deal concocted by the new performing arts committee, and the same private group (the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation) that wasted the money and squandered the public trust is still in charge of things — but no longer responsible for raising their fair share of the funds.

Gee, imagine if Manoli were a city councilperson or even vice mayor. Then he could actually do something about all this rather than just whine to the newspaper.

Your Cheating Echo

Sunday, July 23rd, 2006

I have to admit that Save Richmond’s entry in the “Weekend Without Echoes” project is a bit of a cheat. I started on another, more investigative feature and, frankly, it is bearing fruit that I’m not prepared to pick yet. Needless to say, stay tuned…

What saves me from utter shame is the fact that Save Richmond has been posting without echoes for a long time. The site was started by freelance journalists and we’ve attempted to juggle actual reporting and news-breaking with traditional blogging almost since the day we came online in 2003.

My entry is a little thing I call “Mr. Cabell’s Richmond.” And it is a “cheat” because you can actually find the piece in the print edition of the latest RVA Magazine. The fine folks at RVA have allowed me to reprint “Mr. Cabell’s Richmond” here but you should pick the issue up at your local bookstore or music store anyway, if only to check out the swell interview with legendary local rockers Avail and fine contributions from writers such as Clay McLeod Chapman.

Mixed Up Media

Wednesday, July 19th, 2006

Kudos go out to Style Weekly for printing our daily paper’s in-house media policy in its entirety — and for continuing to closely follow very disturbing developments at the Richmond Times-Dispatch which would seem to run counter to everything sacred about the journalism profession.

Ah, but reading the T-D’s official rules on free speech did remind Save Richmond that we need to get our own restrictive — some might say “Orwellian” — media policy down on paper. Before it’s too late:

Save Richmond Media Policy
(Revised Jan. 1, 1984)

Any comment or statement about, or mention of, Save Richmond or Save Richmond’s eyebrows must be cleared by the bloggers and/or by Julie, the Save Richmond cruise director. Below is the course of action to obtain approval to exercise free speech in cases involving Save Richmond, Save Richmond Industries and Save Richmond Amalgamated Inc.:

A) Calls from media regarding Save Richmond.

When you receive a call from reporters with questions or requests for information or interviews concerning Save Richmond, indicate that you are actually dead. Tell the nosy scum that your funeral was yesterday and that he missed a lovely service. If that doesn’t convince, ask the reporter for the list of questions in writing. In triplicate. And on pink paper with lots of cursive handwriting in gold glitter ink.

Actions:

1) When you receive the questions from the reporter, eat them. Proclaim the questions “yummy” and thank the reporter for stopping by.

2) If that fails to pacify, call Julie, our cruise director, at 555-2323 . If the cruise director is unavailable, call Janet the intern, at 555-9675. If neither are in the office, call security and have the person asking questions violently removed from the building. If none of those options can be exercised, swallow the little red pill that was provided to you during your last employee evaluation. Lie down and relax. It will all be over soon.

3) If the little red pill’s expiration date has expired, write down detailed information about the nature of the inquiry, including the name of the inquisitive publication, the perceived prejudices of the publication, the slightly outdated hairstyle of the interviewer, the “snippy tone” in which the interviewer’s questions were asked, and any anticipated points in future discussions when it might be to our advantage to just shoot the dude and dump his ass out back in the employee smoking area.

4) We will gather all of this information, put it in a deep hole, burn it and then bury the ashes.

5) The charred hole will heretofore be referred to only as “that secret place we never talk about.”

6) It is strictly forbidden to talk about “that secret place we never talk about.”

7) If you should find out that someone else at Save Richmond has been talking about “that secret place we never talk about,” please call Julie, our cruise director, and inform her. We ask you to please try and inform her without mentioning the actual… uh…

8) You know what? Forget you ever heard about “that secret place.” It was a bad idea to tell you about it. So never mind.

9) Questions about coverage will continue to be handled by our stockholders, with Save Richmond’s mothers-in-law always in the loop. Any requests to interview Save Richmond, Save Richmond’s mothers-in-law, or its bloggers on broadcast programs, should be greeted with the f0llowing sarcastic retort: “Why are you asking so many questions — what are you, a reporter or something?” Remember: Your hands should be on your hips petulantly and diabolical laughter should follow this statement.

10) If none of the above works, mention to the reporter that open disclosure within the media is a hoary liberal construct and accuse him of having a “liberal media bias.” That usually does it.

B) Calls from external and internal media regarding Save Richmond’s parent company, Save Richmond Industries.

Any calls should be referred to and cleared by “The Hammer”TM, Vice President of Save Richmond’s Synergetic Corporate Synergy Department and Pest Control, at 555-0128, Ext: 666.

If the interviewer’s questions will be read by analysts or investors, invite him to meet you on the 11th Floor of the Save Richmond building at 3PM so that you can reveal all. Of course, there is no 11th floor on the Save Richmond building — there’s only ten floors! Sucker!

Trade Press:

Questions about Save Richmond corporate issues, sensitive matters concerning the use of the Save Richmond Bathroom Hall Pass and/or the whole entire topic of ethics in journalism should be avoided. As you well know, we are very sensitive to “the third degree” here at Save Richmond and are prone to fits of uncontrollable sobbing when removed from our comfort zone. This is all the more reason for outside meddlers to stop harrassing with silly questions, pesky FOIA requests and so-called “hundreds of phone calls.”

This media policy is effective immediately. Nothing more to see here. Now let’s all get back to work asking probing and hard-hitting questions of others.

Take Me To The River

Monday, July 17th, 2006

We meant to inform everyone before now that one of our favorite local blogs, River City Rapids, can now be found at a new web address. For perceptive social commentary, insightful thoughts on regional politics and the best in upcoming entertainment and cultural offerings, bookmark RCR with extreme enthusiasm. You’ll be glad you did.

Attention Politicians & Public Figures

Friday, July 14th, 2006

It’s your lucky day, reports Style Weekly in this week’s must-read cover story by Greg Weatherford.

Tired of those pushy questions, pesky inquiries, time-consuming FOIA requests and late-night phone calls verifying silly “facts”? Why not just clam up and refuse to speak? Here are Five Things You Can Now Tell Richmond Times-Dispatch Reporters When They Call You Up and Ask You To Explain Yourself:

1. “I’ll defer your question to my marketing and promotions department.”

2. “I have decided that answering your question would not be to my advantage.”

3. “I’d love to answer your question truthfully and honestly but I have a mortgage and I could lose my job.”

4. “I’m puzzled by the degree of trust that has been lost here. It makes me sad and fills me with ennui. Did you say something?”

5. “I’d really like to respond but I’m w-a-a-a-y too busy taking the old form of journalism we had in this town and burying it in a hole. In a minute, I’m going to set a fire and burn this old journalism to a crisp. You can watch from a distance if you want… but no questions.”

Where Have I Heard That One Before?

Thursday, July 13th, 2006

Donations lower after arts center downsizing
Richmond Times-Dispatch
Jul 12, 2006

Private fundraising barely blipped after a scaled-back plan to reopen the Carpenter Center and a $20 million challenge were announced in early May.

Cash, pledges and other revenue to the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation rose by $20,684 from April 30 to May 31, the group’s latest financial report shows.

The latest financial report, released Friday, gives a snapshot of commitments… It does not reflect the $4.5 million in state funds that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine recently restored for the project.

The financial report shows $62.8 million raised for all aspects of the project through May, which includes contributions and pledges that are restricted for particular uses and others limited by conditions, such as the death of the donor. The foundation had received about half that amount — $30.8 million — and spent $27.8 million on capital and operational expenses.

Repeated attempts to reach Wilder for comment Monday and yesterday were unsuccessful. Linwood Norman, a spokesman for Wilder, said yesterday afternoon that he could not comment.

A Short History of Responsibility and Accountability, Richmond style [emphasis mine]:

”There’s no question that [the arts center] is something that is going to benefit us. But even so, there are a couple of aspects of this — the financing — that we haven’t talked about tonight and the public needs to know. What’s been proposed is an interim financing. [Raising the meals tax] isn’t a 1% 20-year or 30-year tax that gets imposed whether it goes or not… it’s going to last until June, 2005. At which point the other elements of the financing need to be in place. And I think that’s wise.
— Councilman Bill Pantele, Richmond City Council, July 2003

“I also like the fact - the stipulation that was put in that if the performing arts foundation didn’t demonstrate that they could fully fund this project by a certain time, then the resources would also be withdrawn from them… so that doesn’t leave us hanging out there. It puts responsibility and accountability on everyone that’s involved.
— Councilwoman Dolores McQuinn, Richmond City Council, July 2003

[VAPAF CEO Brad] Armstrong says he is confident the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation will be able to procure the remaining funds needed for completion of the project. “There is no question in my mind about that.”
— June 2004

“I am completely convinced they’ll see every dollar of our pledges is solid, every number we’ve given is accurate . . . and this project is worthy of the continued support from the city.”
— Brad Amstrong, Mar. 2005

It seems to me [the VAPAF] have raised quite a lot of money in three years, and I take some confidence in that.”
— Councilwoman Kathy Graziano, Apr. 2005

“We’ve got $67.9 million that we can identify toward this project,” Armstrong says. “Tell me why that shouldn’t give huge confidence that we can close the gap?”
— May 2005

“We have been completely forthcoming with our financials. Every pledge that we have, that we are counting toward this project, has a written contract with a schedule of pledge payments. Our donors are adhering to their schedule of pledge payments. We have not felt it necessary to accelerate those pledge payments when we did not need the cash.
— Armstrong, May 2005

“We want to give them the opportunity to raise the rest, and we are confident they will be able to do that.”
— Vice Mayor G. Manoli Loupassi, May 2005

We have reached over two-thirds of our $98 million fundraising goal to build a new performing arts center on what used to be the Thalhimers block downtown… Our challenge is to raise $30 million in 18 months”
— Armstrong, July 2005

“I think it is premature” to talk about cutting the foundation off. They’re in the middle of a capital campaign . . . there seems to be some fundraising momentum.
— Pantele, Aug. 2005

If anything, we’ve over-delivered… we are confident that our [private fundraising] pledges are solid . . . we call on them as we need them. Bank accounts will go up and down month by month, but if we had $10 million in the bank I wouldn’t feel any more confident than I do now in our pledges.”
— Armstrong, Aug. 2005

“That’s why the private sector was involved to raise the money. If we just let them try to raise the money, they can raise the money.”
— Loupassi, Nov. 2005

Same as it ever was:

“[The VAPAF's new financial] report is not significant in giving you a view of the reception we’re getting, which is all very positive. We’re still in the process . . . of talking to people. All that process takes time, but we are off to a strong start.”
— J. Robert Mooney (Brad Armstrong’s replacement), Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, July 2006

“Summertime is not the best time to raise money…We are going to have a hard-hitting, short, not a fancy, campaign. We’re going to go out and sell the urgency of what we need to do. I’d say it’s kicking in right now… I’m making calls, but we really aren’t prepared to announce [details.] I’d say we’re in a quiet phase.”
— VAPAF Chairman Jim Ukrop, July 2006

“Gifts take some time. Millions of dollars tend to not be given abruptly. I’m not hearing any pessimism about the business community being able to rise to this challenge.”
— Pantele, July 2006

If I Can Dream

Sunday, July 9th, 2006

For some time now, we’ve been yelling and screaming our lungs out about how the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation / Performing Arts Committee boondoggle is a state story that deserves the full attention of those in the press who are supposed to be covering Virginia. To our dismay, the professional “journalists” and normally bulldoggish anti-tax commentators have, up to this point, largely ignored the outrageous lengths that Virginia politicians will go to in order to fully fund the private VAPAF with public money; this despite the Foundation’s documented history of a) Wasting millions in previously-granted tax dollars b) Failing to have their expensive plan subjected to a feasibility study c) Ignoring any and all public input and d) Being less than honest with taxpayers footing the bills.

Thanks to Peter Hardin of the Richmond Times-Dispatch — a news source we recently took to task for multiple offenses — for being the first state reporter to actually do a little digging into the project’s current funding status, in a fine front page article about the federal money earmarks that Sen. George Allen is too proud and/or forgetful to tell his constituents about.

AND YOU’LL NEVER GUESS WHICH PROJECT WAS AMONG THOSE THAT GEORGE ALLEN PROPOSED TO EARMARK BEHIND EVERYONE’S BACK!

No, seriously, you get three guesses. Emphasis mine:

Few lawmakers…want to be among the first to break with secrecy and disclose the requests they make for earmarks. When Virginia members of Congress were asked by The Times-Dispatch to disclose the requests they submitted for fiscal 2006, they refused.

Some spokesmen for the Virginians described their earmark requests as internal documents. Others said confidentiality is needed for lawmakers to handle the earmarking process.

“We have complied with the letter and spirit of the law and will continue to do so,” said John Reid, a spokesman for Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

“It becomes difficult for us to operate in the type of confidence we need with those who request projects of us, if we begin to make those actual request letters public,” said John Ullyot, a spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va.

For a public accounting, the senators’ offices steered a reporter to their news releases announcing home-state projects that got congressional funding.

The releases announced dozens of projects, including $2 million for a bus operations and maintenance facility for the GRTC Transit System in Richmond. All the projects added up to hundreds of millions of dollars, but some of the releases were not comprehensive.

For example, Allen did not announce a $300,000 earmark for the performing-arts center in Richmond after it was included in a broad spending bill in December, although he listed other Virginia projects. The center has been controversial.

“We are proud of it” and did not try to hide the earmark, Allen spokesman Reid said. He explained that aides who scrambled to write the announcement apparently were unaware of the earmark.

Lawmakers typically request far more funding for earmarks than they get. Critics contend that secrecy about the requests hides influence exercised in the earmarking process by friends, lobbyists or campaign donors. “What it’s about is a congressman making decisions on who gets money . . . and who doesn’t, from local communities,” said Keith Ashdown, a vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

Michael Shear of the Washington Post told Save Richmond just a few weeks ago that the arts center debacle was only a local Richmond story. Gosh, I wonder how he will spin this one at the next blog conference.

The story of Allen’s stealth appropriation should make the rest of Virginia’s foot-dragging state government watchers look into the origins of the “hole in the ground” for their readers (I hear there is an election campaign or something going on). George Allen’s hidden earmark is really just the small tip of the iceberg. Anyone up for an investigative report on the origins of the arts center project, including details on who was responsible for crafting the Foundation’s original sweetheart real estate deal in the first place?

I know, I know… dreaming again.

Update / Clarification: It should be said that Norm at “One Man’s Trash” is the perpetual notable exception to any and all SR harangues about slient conservative anti-tax hawks. Can’t state the situation any better than he does here:

For the life of me, I cannot understand why George Allen would want to give $300,000 to this project — a project that has already frittered away millions of dollars in private and public funds with nothing to show for it aside from a shuttered Carpenter Center, a massive vacant lot downtown, and a trail of broken promises and tarnished reputations. Utterly, completely astounding.