Archive for January, 2007

What’s Not to Like?

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

Predictably, Richmond’s performing arts center mess came down to who got control of the property. Both sides do.

And, on the surface, everything looks fine. All parties win on paper, full speed ahead. No need for anybody to actually, y’know, read the report justifying it or anything. I mean, it seems so straightforward: The city gives up $25 million and gets the title to the Carpenter Center (now the Carpenter Theater) and the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation — or Newco or Ammalgamated Incorporated or whatever they are called now— will own it forever “for tax and financial planning purposes.”

Huh?

But somehow this complicated, near-loopy arrangement seems… right for this particular project. As Jim Ukrop poignantly told NBC12 news last night: “It didn’t really matter that much. We’ll have control of the lease for my generation, for my children’s generation…”

And that’s all that really matters, right?

Of course, this whole proposal is subject to the authority and oversight of the Mayor through some newly-proposed committees (gosh, we love us some committees around here). City council will not be required under this plan, thank you very much. That was the first bit of breaking news at the press conference yesterday, where Wilder also informed a throng of reporters, civic activists, bloggers, arts supporters and curious Martin Agency employees that it was actually his idea to include Foundation members on the performing arts committee. Blow me down! (Question: why in the world would he do that?)

And he gave his blessing to the long-awaited performing arts commitee report. Here are key excerpts from the report’s Executive Summary:

Financial support for Richmond CenterStage includes $25 Million “City of the Future” funding, $20+ Million private support, plus $5.7 Million of State and Federal grants, and expected historic tax credits and funds on hand. In summary, the Committee recommends that:

? The City of Richmond would take title to the expanded Carpenter Theater, as part of its $25 Million “City of the Future” funding.

? A special purpose, public-private Limited Partnership (“Newco LP”) would be established to serve as the master developer and operator of Richmond CenterStage.

? Under long-term leases and agreements, Newco LP would lease the Carpenter Theater from the City and the Dorothy Pauley Square facilities from the Foundation.

? For tax and financial planning purposes, Newco LP would be viewed as the owner of the entire Richmond CenterStage project, including the Carpenter Theater and Dorothy Pauley Square; and the City, Foundation and tax credit investors would become the Limited Partners of Newco LP.

? A new not-for-profit entity, Newco GP, would serve as Newco LP’s General Partner; and Mayor Wilder would appoint its Board of Directors, with input from the arts community and the Foundation.

? The Public-Private Partnership structure would enable Newco LP and the City of Richmond to enter into a comprehensive agreement for Newco’s development of Richmond CenterStage.

? The Board of Newco GP would carry out its work through two committees, the Building Committee and Operations Committee.

? The Building Committee would oversee all aspects of the renovation and construction of Richmond CenterStage facilities.

? The Operations Committee would manage and operate Richmond CenterStage’s facilities and the Landmark Theater.

? The Foundation will continue fundraising to build an Operating Endowment that would support facilities operations, stabilize rental rates for local arts groups and help fund capital repairs.

? The current construction budgets and timetables would be maintained for Richmond CenterStage to be completed on budget and on time.

? The Music Hall site on Broad Street would first serve as a construction site, and then could be an outdoor park or performance space until its ultimate and best use is determined.

? The Foundation and the City would continue to jointly seek potential commercial development of the Broad Street site that may include a Music Hall or other performing arts facility.

? Improvements to the Landmark Theater should focus on loading dock and acoustical reflectors; and improvements for Landmark’s patrons would include additional restrooms, ADA compliance and interior painting.

There’s some good stuff in there. Anyone wanna argue that the Landmark doesn’t need some work too? And if the Mayor chooses inclusive and knowledgable people to helm the thing, and mans those committees with more representatives from “the arts community” than representives of “the Foundation,” it could even be something that works.

But get into the actual report and you start to see that much is missing. As Eagle Eyes pointed out in an email that accompanied various other missives among people who have studied this project for awhile, the committee’s output says nothing about verifying future private pledges - “that is how it all went bad the first time.”

Soon, all kinds of red flags were being raised…

And who pays for cost overruns?

And why isn’t accountability written into the report specifically?

… they spent 1.2 Million Dollars before they even had a new concept?

Under “Structure” they reference Chapter 22.1 of the City Code. Sorry, 22.1 covers cemetaries, not private-public partnerships.

And so on and so on… The Performing Arts Committee report has been nothing if not good conversation fodder. But is it the best we can get? The mayor says he likes it and wants it. The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation (obviously) wants it. The arts groups affiliated with the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation say they want it. Do you want it?

Read the plan and mull that question over. Start your own chain of emails with friends. Ask them, and ask yourself, if the PAC Committee’s effort reads more like a first draft that needs some retooling before the city lets Newco — or JamestownShellCo or Ambusto or whatever it is — receive $25 million and a place in line ahead of building new schools. With all due respect to the mayor, who used the word “accountability” a lot yesterday — if he can break this kind of convoluted bread with the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation after their continued lack of same, Deborah Jewell-Sherman should be easy potatoes.

Wilder’s Choice

Monday, January 8th, 2007

Tomorrow, we find out for sure if directly electing Richmond’s mayor constituted real “change” for the city, or if it was all a delusional campaign promise.

Mayor to Respond to Final Report Of the Performing Arts Committee

WHO: Mayor L. Douglas Wilder, members of the Performing Arts Committee, and other officials and community leaders

WHAT: The Mayor will respond to the final report of the Performing Arts Committee

WHEN: Tuesday, January 9, 10:30 a.m.

WHERE: The Martin Agency, One Shockoe Plaza

BACKGROUND: The Mayor appointed the Performing Arts Committee in November of 2005 to study Richmond’s long-term performing arts needs and to make actionable recommendations that could be incorporated into his “City of the Future” program. The Committee’s final report will be presented at the January 9th meeting, and the Mayor will respond to the recommendations contained therein.

Some people continue to paint Wilder’s options as supporting the arts or not supporting the arts. But those folks are fully intent on blurring the larger, more important issues surrounding this affair. Does the city continue to subsidize a wasteful private foundation that has already squandered millions, all because “the right people” are at the helm… or does it demand ownership of the Carpenter Center, install serious oversight and make sure local arts professionals (not the VAPAF or its expensive out-of-town consultants) are put in real positions of authority?

Right now it looks more and more like Wilder wasted a year on this Performing Arts Committee. With the Foundation fully involved in drafting the performing arts committee’s reports, and the committee rejecting any other plan but the Foundation’s (while allowing only one, barely-announced public Q&A), can anyone argue — without giggling — that this year-long process was a fair, thorough and open one that took in all ideas and considerations — especially the long term needs of local artists, arts patrons and average taxpayers? We are precisely where we were one year ago; the only proposal before us is the Foundation’s and we await the mayor’s decision on whether or not the city continues to pour money, no strings attached, into what is essentially a private party.

For what it is worth, the mayor (in his latest VISIONS newsletter) pointedly reminds all of us how we got here. And whose fault it is.

Emphasis mine:

Recommendations on how to proceed with renovating The Carpenter Center will become known when the Performing Arts Committee presents its final report on January 9. During the past two years as The Carpenter Center sat empty, an ongoing saga unfolded for public view that included excessive staff salaries and entertainment expenses, profligate architectural renderings, and questionable fundraising calculations.

Strong words. So why would the mayor give away the Carpenter Center, and accompanying millions, to those responsible for all of that? And after witnessing the Foundation’s dubious actions of late, does anyone — especially Wilder — seriously think the Foundation’s methods and madness have changed in any meaningful way?

And didn’t the mayor propose disbanding the Industrial Development Authority because it had wasted and mis-managed a couple hundred thousand dollars? OK, so why would he reward a private Foundation that wasted $7 million in public tax dollars… and blamed him for it?

The only thing known for sure: We’ll find out tomorrow who really runs Richmond.

A New Year in Richmond

Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007

Footloose Party 2

One giant step forward…

Two midget steps back.