Archive for October, 2008

Bill Pantele and the RTD Op Ed Page: They Deserve Each Other

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

Let’s play a civics version of “The Price is Right.” What did carrying the water for Metro Richmond’s biggest wigs buy Bill Pantele?

Why, only an endorsement from the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial page.

Not only an endorsement, but a piece of revisionist history so outlandish and non-sensical that even the late Philip K. Dick would be embarrassed to write it down. The editorial, published in today’s paper, is particularly curious since Pantele was not even deemed worthy of being re-elected to his own council seat by these same writers in 2006!

Read that last sentence again before continuing.

Today’s spew:

City Council President Bill Pantele has demonstrated a superior understanding of both the workings of city government and the larger challenges facing Richmond. We endorse his candidacy with enthusiasm.

We entered the process as agnostics. The Editorial staff met at length with each candidate and followed the campaign closely. We were swayed by several candidates before making our choice. In the end, it seemed clear to us that Pantele is best suited to become a problem-solving mayor.

Pantele’s tenure on the council means he already has identified the problems facing Richmond — and they are legion — and knows which lever to pull (or whom to call) to start making fixes. He recognizes the city’s strengths and how to build on them.

Following the drama of the Wilder years, Richmond needs a mayor who can concentrate on the often unglamorous business of improving the city’s core responsibilities — public safety, infrastructure, economic development, social services.

Uh-huh. My favorite part (of course):

We believe Pantele can advance Wilder’s call to treat taxpayers’ money with more respect.

Sure. Pantele treats city taxpayers with so much respect that he doesn’t want to upset our delicate sensibilites by telling us where our money is going. He has ensured that the city’s “Bridge to Nowhere” will be publicly funded for years to come without any inconvenient “oversight” being applied — all to empower the big boys and keep the rest of us in the dark. Whatta guy!

This is the same politican who, in 2003, voted to raise the meals tax to fund that same multi-million project, which has never been submitted to an independent feasibility study, and used these words to justify his vote:

“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. This 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.”

It’s 2008. If you should go out for dinner tonight anywhere in the city, look at your bill and see for yourself what happened to that “interim financing.” Not only is the meals tax hike still on the books — one of the highest rates in the state — citizens are now blocked from finding out where that money (and more) is going and how it is spent.

And it’s all thanks to the taxpayers’ friend, Bill Pantele.

Look it up. Section 20 (c) of the CenterStage Comprehensive Agreement - Financial Statements reads:

On a periodic basis, as requested by the City, the LLLP and the Foundation shall furnish the City with current and complete financial statements. Financial statements submitted as required by this subsection will not be subject to public disclosure.

Yep, with the “official” business community candidate Robert Grey polling too low for comfort, the RTD’s op ed page has obviously decided that all stops (and all logic) must be pulled out in order to stop the Democratic ballot candidate, Dwight Jones, from becoming mayor — facts and consistency be damned. [BTW: Jones picked up some recent endorsements that are a wee bit more impressive and persuasive. See here.]

But, in a way, the RTD mayoral pick is not surprising. This is the same op ed page, after all, that has supported everything from Massive Resistence to Bill Clinton’s impeachment monkey trial to the War in Iraq to the swift boating of John Kerry — the same cabal of “thinkers” who told you George W. Bush was worthy of office and of re-election. This is the same newspaper editorial page that, this year, endorsed both John McCain for the presidency and (are you sitting down?) Jim Gilmore for Senate. Instead of ideas, these guys disseminate the worst kind of right-wing propaganda day after day — swill that neither reflects nor includes the greater community it pretends to serve.

How else can you explain why the editorial page is unable to hire — in a city that overwhelmingly votes Democratic — even one regular local columnist on their pages who is left of center? They won’t do it because it would be like a turkey shoot for any liberal writer to refute and debunk the kind of ideas these guys poot out on a daily basis. And who needs that hassle, eh? This lack of diversity is especially cowardly since the so-called “liberal” newspapers that the RTD op edders regularly deride (such as the Washington Post and New York Times) are somehow able to find slots on their editorial pages for all kinds of local columnists, left, right and center.

And now these same folks say they want Bill Pantele to be the mayor. I say look at their track record and vote accordingly.

Or, at the very least, ask yourself what happened during the past two years for Pantele’s stock to rise so dramatically? What transformed “Dollar Bill” from an unworthy councilman to a peerless would-be Mayor?

What happened is that Bill Pantele played ball, and pulled some strings for the forces that really run Richmond. And that’s good enough for the RTD.

Plus: It is desperation time in the editorial department — they are facing the very real prospect that a centrist African-American who has promised to protect Richmond’s river views from willy-nilly development and install transparency into taxpayer-funded projects will become mayor. That’s like Nightmare on Elm Street to these folks.

Paul Goldman agrees, and brings up a few questions of his own about today’s smelly endorsement:

Two years ago, the RTD thought Bill Pantele’s record and involvements were of such little moment that they urged voters to kick him off City Council. That’s right: they backed his opponent saying that Bill didn’t get it and his performance didn’t merit your vote. They urged voters to vote for the proverbial anyone-but-Pantele candidate, a virtual unknown.

But back then, Bill had not, as Francis Ford Coppola might have said, “made his bones”….

Later [emphasis Goldman]:

… in the entire RTD editorial endorsing Bill, THEY DO NOT MENTION ONE ACHIEVEMENT OF HIS.

NOT ONE!

They do not mention a single problem he has solved.

They say that it is “clear to us that Pantele is best suited to become a problem-solving mayor.”

Yet the RTD says: “Pantele’s tenure on the council means he already has identified the problems facing Richmond — and they are legion — and knows which lever to pull (or whom to call) to start making fixes. He recognizes the city’s strengths and how to build on them.” .

Say what? If the problems are legion, and Bill has been on City Council for 7 years, and yet the RTD can not cite a single achievement in solving any of these problems, what is really going on here?

“We believe Pantele can advance Wilder’s call to treat taxpayers’ money with more respect” says the RTD.

Say what? According to the Mayor, Mr. Pantele has been the most wasteful city councilman of them all! According to the Mayor, because of Bill’s failure to follow the law, the Mayor says we have a $6 MILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT in the city budget!

So how can Bill “advance Wilder’s call” when Wilder is saying that Bill is the reason we are going backward!?

But the most amazing RTD statement is this one: “Pantele has battled often with Wilder, which proves he can play in the big leagues.”

Say what?

This is one for the record books. Why would bickering with Doug Wilder qualify anyone for the big leagues whatever that is suppose to mean.

SO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

Since the RTD seems to feel that Doug Wilder can help define the answer, let me leave you with one of the Mayor’s favorite political sayings [cleaned-up], which I am quite sure Bill Pantele has heard before:

Even Ray Charles can see what his really happening here.

Want some perspective on this endorsement? Ask yourself these questions:

1. What if there were a videotape that existed of a Chicago legislator accepting a brown paper bag full of bribe money to help Barack Obama’s political career? Do you think the RTD opinionists would have something to say about that — again and again and again?

2. What if there were a videotape of Mark Warner shutting down debate on a motion to have taxpayers see where their money will go over the next forty years? Do you think that the RTD editorial junta would make that an instant “web exclusive” and a constant campaign issue against Warner? (How about every damn day?)

3. What if, three weeks after Tim Kaine helped to rush a vote on a controversial taxpayer-funded project, the Democratic governor were treated to a $1,000 a plate political fundraiser hosted by the people who would benefit most from that rushed vote? Do you think the RTD Dittoheads might just remind us of that fact a time or two (or 12)?

But in this Pantele endorsement, you get nothing but empty and blatantly false platitudes. Nothing about his past, and nothing that explains away the paper’s previous words on his leadership qualities.

I guess when you’ve been wrong (and intellectually dishonest) for more than 150 years — on just about every meaningful issue from Civil Rights to regulating Wall Street to the War in Iraq — why stop now?

The Silly Season

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

As James River Maven reminds us today, there are some good reasons why they call this final part of the political marathon, “The Silly Season.”

In a great post entitled “I Guess They Think We’re Stupid,” The Mave writes:

One of Republican Jim Gilmore’s TV ads accuses Mark Warner of lying. The ad says “he promised not to raise taxes but he raised taxes” or something like that. Well, this maven has read the Constitution and laws of Virginia and I know that in this Commonwealth the governor has no power to raise taxes. Only the General Assembly can do that. I guess Mr. Gilmore and his campaign publicists figure that the voters of Virginia are too stupid to know the difference.

I saw one of mayoral candidate Robert Grey’s TV commercials. Mr. Grey pledges that he will increase the amount of school funding that is spent in the classroom to 75% of the whole. Of course, under the laws of Virginia it is the school board that is given exclusive authority to run the schools and it is the superintendent of schools and the school board that have the exclusive authority to prepare the annual Richmond Public School budget. I guess Mr. Grey and his campaign publicists figure that the voters of Richmond are too stupid to understand.

Mayoral candidate Bill Pantele’s mail out ad claims that he has reduced the real estate tax burden while on the City Council. Of course Mr. Pantele doesn’t acknowledge that the City Council is a corporate body of nine members, so he could not single handedly have reduced anything. He also expects that voters in Richmond might not notice that in fact their real estate taxes have gone up every year that he has been on the council. Mr. Pantele’s TV ad claims that he “hired” extra police for the city and “saved $25 million” by ordering an audit of Richmond Public Schools. It is amazing to me that a single councilman, with no executive functions, could have accomplished so much. I guess Mr. Pantele and his campaign publicists think that voters of Richmond are too stupid to know the real facts.

I know what the Maven means. It makes my blood boil to hear candidates pontificate on “accountability” and “transparency” in their press releases, while at the same time they actively work to shield how taxpayer dollars and city resources will be used. Hey, maybe we ARE that stupid!

But while we might lament the political menu available to us in other parts of the city, the voters in the 4th have an embarrassment of rich choices for their School Board picks. If it wasn’t for our man Jonathan Mallard being on the ballot — he’s one of the smartest people in Richmond, folks (quote me!) — I’d be talking up Bert Berlin (the Maven) for the job. I have to politely but strongly disagree with some of the very astute people who have come out against Jonathan — we need someone on that board who understands how to read a contract and how to implement audit recommendations, don’t you think? (For another view on the subject, the Richmond Voice has endorsed Mallard).

All in all, I hope we will see a new school board to go along with our new mayor and new (I hope) City Council — and let’s hope one of these two is sitting on that board.

The Council Giveth…

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

That L. Douglas Wilder has a wicked sense of humor. As a parting gift to the City of Richmond, he has appointed me as a director of the Arts Council’s Metro Richmond Arts and Cultural Funding Consortium (serving alongside my man, William J. Pantele). Ain’t that a kick?

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the only sick humor on display at City Council last night. The city also added a trio of add-ons and fixes to the CenterStage comprehensive agreement. See them here, here and here. [UPDATE: Readers report that one of three things happen when you click these links to the papers — you either get an error message from the Richmond city website, or your internet browser will inexplicably close, or you will actually get to view the ordinances. Think of it as a civic crap shoot, or a very, very expensive internet game of hide and seek — played with your tax dollars.]

Among the chestnuts in these sweeteners — all of which passed a depressing 8-0, natch — is a provision that would seem to make the entire Comprehensive Agreement irrelevant:

7. Termination. A new section of 21(c) is hereby added to the Comprehensive Agreement as follows:

“(c) Termination of City Lease.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no termination of this agreement shall act as a termination of the City Lease. The terms and conditions of the City Lease shall govern the remedies of the parties thereto with respect to the City Lease in the event of a default under this Comprehensive Agreement.

Did anything pass that would make the project more transparent to the taxpayers funding it? Mayoral candidate Robert Grey will be shocked to learn… no.

On the contrary — another alteration in the deal (See: 6. Carpenter Theatre Management Agreement) pretty much sets in stone the publicly-funded project’s “private” status.

So, in addition to future oversight, there go all the assurances about the city taking over the Carpenter Center if VAPAF/CenterStage/RPAC fudges their fundraising numbers again, and has to return to the city, hat in hand, for more money. And the project will be shielded from future Freedom of Information Act inquiries, despite the considerable public money that will be funneled into the project. The City Auditor’s recommendation that the Foundation post its financial information online for taxpayers to see has been long forgotten about.

Did someone say that this was Richmond’s “Bridge to Nowhere”? Yeah, except that someone with some spine eventually realized that Alaskan deal was screwy and reined it in.

Did I mention that all three of these ordinances passed 8-0?

Yep, I sure do appreciate the honor of serving the City of Richmond and the arts community in whatever capacity I can (I promise to wear clean pants to Consortium meetings). And I’m grateful to our citizen legislators for confirming me to the Arts and Funding Consortium last night — even my buddy Bill — but methinks we need a new City Council to go along with that new mayor on November 4th. One that at least asks a few questions, like where our money’s going.

Robert Grey’s GOP Ties Deepen!

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

Plungers

It’s not enough that Robert Grey has the full support of the area’s biggest Republican backers, the well-dressed mayoral candidate is now starting to steal ideas from the McCain/Palin campaign handbook.

Joe the Plumber… meet Jack the Blogger.

Why Bill Pantele Hates Bloggers

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

Bill Pantele announced at Tuesday’s debate in Fulton that Richmond “needs less bloggers.”

Not surprisingly, Richmond’s bloggers have concurrently announced that the city needs “less Bill Panteles.”

Here Are The Top 10 reasons why Councilman Comb-over hates bloggers:

10. Bloggers have led the way in asking tough questions about Pantele’s sordid political past.

9. Bloggers have lowered our public discourse by flagrantly endorsing hard drinking barflies for Mayor.

8. In Pantele’s view, it is a scandal that Richmond should be as well-known for its active and vibrant “citizen journalism” as it is for its corrupt and dysfunctional city leadership.

7. Bloggers have posted video clips of how Pantele does “business” on City Council and we all know that bloggers are bad for “business.”

6. Bloggers have criticized a Pantele pet project — a city-funded “Party Patrol” that roams the Fan District trying to censor student parties (whether there are neighborhood complaints or not).

5. Bloggers are a hassle. There are so many of them… who has time to fire them all?

4. He’s mad because his own personal blogger dropped out of the rat race to “touch Indians.”

3. Bloggers and Bon Jovi fans have had nothing but contempt for each other since the unfortunate “Slippery When Wi-Fi” incident of 2006 (don’t ask!).

2. How many Richmond bloggers are currently planning huge condo projects along the James River that would block scenic views? Well, alright then — case closed!

…And the number one reason why “Dollar Bill” Pantele hates bloggers?

1. It’s hard to say why. It does seem a bit ungrateful after area bloggers helped to transform him into an internationally-famous Dance Music icon.

[Which brings up a larger question — is there blogging in Bosnia?]

Out of the Box

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

The candidates for Richmond’s mayor have been attentive and patient suitors, indeed.

I mean, c’mon: Has Richmond ever seen this many Mayoral debates? Hear, hear and all that. Let’s only hope it’s a trend that will be followed for future elections. (And it continues tonight…)

I have attended three of these programs so far — and only Paul Goldman really sounded convincing to me. Beyond the jokes, the aggressive attitude, the constant reminders that he’s the one who originally pushed to have Richmond’s Mayor directly elected — we get it, Paul — he has been the real stuff; the only Mayoral aspirant with a grasp of the city’s (and the country’s) fiscal challenges, the only one who took a strong early stand of support for such important citizen-led initiatives as the Downtown Plan, the only one to stump on greater citizen inclusion and involvement (he proposed a citizen-led Unity Council to advise City Hall). He has clearly been the smartest, if not most qualified, runner in the race. He has also been (by far) the crankiest, he has a “Yankee” accent and is often fond of using ill-advised motion picture analogies on the podium and in his press releases.

Here, in Richmond, he didn’t have a chance.

Goldman exits race for Richmond mayor
By the Associated Press
October 21, 2008

RICHMOND, Va. - Paul Goldman dropped out of the race on Tuesday and tossed his support to Del. Dwight C. Jones. Goldman is a former senior adviser to Mayor L. Douglas Wilder and former chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party.

With Goldman out of the running, Jones and three other candidates are seeking to govern Virginia’s capital city of 200,000.

The others are City Council President William J. Pantele, corporate lawyer Robert J. Grey Jr. and architect Lawrence E. Williams.

Wilder has not endorsed his successor, and expressed his disappointment with the field in a column in Sunday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Why was Goldman doomed?

Perhaps attorney Michaeal Morchower said it best in the RTD:

“What Paul doesn’t have is old Richmond. What’s important in Richmond is who’s your daddy, and where you go to church.”

No, Goldman wasn’t running a distant fourth in the Mayor’s race because he didn’t have ideas — he has had those in spades and perhaps a few too many. Goldman was lagging behind because he never received support from the rich Republicans who have traditionally pulled Richmond’s puppet strings — Robert Grey is their candidate (look for the RTD endorsement soon!) — or from developers salivating over precious river views — those would be Bill Pantele’s people — or from a tired city Democratic machine responsible for the kind of go-along leadership that provoked the city to begin electing its own mayor in the first place — that would be the voting block pushing Dwight Jones. This is Richmond, remember — we run in packs.

A few days ago, Goldman was snarling at House of Delegates member Jones because of a blatantly rigged endorsement from the Richmond Democrats. But that’s politics for you. According to Style Weekly’s Chris Dovi, who was at the joint press conference that the two politcos arranged Tuesday morning:

Goldman told the gathered throng of reporters and TV crews that he’d made up his mind to drop out during the last mayoral debate hosted by Style Weekly on Oct. 14. He says he realized mid-answer while standing on stage that “there’s only two guys here for change.”

Goldman called dropping out “a practical decision” to allow one of those two guys a better opportunity to win. He cited “powerful forces” lending financial support to the campaigns of Bill Pantele and Robert Grey. Grey is rumored to be planning a major television advertising blitz in the coming weeks that could be a just-add-water solution to his problem with name recognition among voters.

Goldman says he’s hoping that his endorsement will help Jones. “It’s best that we join forces.” From a practical standpoint, that endorsement could lend votes to Jones in West End districts where Goldman has his base and Jones is weakest.

Although Goldman said he plans to remain active in the race, now campaigning for his former opponent, both Jones and Goldman also swept aside questions about any possible arrangement having been reached to provide Goldman a position in a possible Jones administration.

“Mr. Goldman is absolutely somebody who knows a lot about Richmond, but this is not some deal,” Jones said. “No promises have been made.”

Goldman went further, saying he would decline any possible City Hall post offered by Jones.

In a press release, Goldman explained that his decision to leave the race and endorse Jones made sense:

“It’s not the odd fellows getting together because we have stood together on many of the same things in most instances in this campaign. We stood before the press and we talked about where the raises for senior citizens where. We have stood together on transparency as it relates to the Center Stage project, we have stood together for making sure the dysfunction of the last four years doesn’t continue to be a part of Richmond’s history.”

Needless to say, I’m very disappointed in Goldman’s pledge to turn down a position on Jones’ staff, if asked. We need both innovative ideas and basic competence from the next administration if Richmond is going to take that next step forward to being something other than Charlotte-Lite. Goldman’s out-of-the-box thinking is what is really required when you are stuck in a box like Richmond’s. I’m not the only one who thought Wilder was doing pretty good when Goldman was around, and when he left…

But, OK, let’s say he can’t get the man himself to come aboard.

Nothing says a Mayor Dwight C. Jones couldn’t pick and choose from the many, many ideas and plans for reform that Paul has already thrown out into the public square — and to heed the man’s persuasive warnings about Richmond’s financial situation.

Transparency and accountability would be nice.

And you know what — a Unity Council might be just the thing to bring about some unity around here, what do you say?

Note to voters: Do you want an easy, informative and downright illuminating way to keep up with the Mayor’s Race as it heats up in the final days? Try the Richmond Good Life’s special page on the campaign. It’s worth noting that Ed of the Good Life was the only area pundit to correctly guess that Goldman’s “surprise” press conference on Tuesday was to announce an endorsement of Jones:

Goldman to shake-up Mayor’s race tomorrow, October 21, with major announcement
(Hmmmm, my wild ass guess = Joins Team Jones…IF that happens, give Jones the mayorship…that is unless Pantele and Grey join up to form Businesstron…)

Ed wins the toaster!

Robert Grey is a Laugh Riot!

Friday, October 17th, 2008

Well, we know this for certain: If the “business community”’s hand-picked candidate Robert Grey doesn’t become mayor, he has a bright career ahead of him in the field of standup comedy:

Grey said at a news conference yesterday that public-private partnerships, such as the one used for the downtown arts-center project, could help move the city forward in a tough economy.

“Public-private partnerships are not just about construction,” he said. “They are about getting results for our community through investment of human capital.”

So welcome to your future, Richmond…

Richmond\'s Hole

Where “results” will only cost you $10 million per hole. [Photo credit: 3bte.blogspot]

Take the Goldman Challenge!

Thursday, October 16th, 2008


Mayoral Debate 2 - Question 8.5 from RVA News on Vimeo.

Our favorite mayoral candidate finally puts 2 and 2 together after Tuesday’s debate… and sends a challenge out to the local media to start looking into the details of the arts center before the election.

Paul writes [emphasis mine]:

[Robert Grey] suggested I had some bad motivations in my taking the lead in exposing the the fiscal irresponsibility and fiscal flaws of the $100 million failed Arts Project that had led to that city auditor’s report of $100’s of thousands of dollars in unjustified expense reimbursements. He didn’t disagree with what I had found, for how could he: The City Auditor agreed with my premise that much money had indeed been wrongfully or wastefully spent.

So instead, Robert went for the false personal attack on me, claiming falsely that I had held up good people to intentional ridicule for no good reason.

“Interesting” I thought, I remember looking out at the audience, the glare from the lights making me squint a little. This was, to be a sure, a very pro-arts audience, and so my initial reaction was that Grey had calculated that he wanted to slam me to this group, to make it seem that somehow I had attacked pro-arts folks personally.

In this format, there is no rebuttal as there was at the TJ debate. Thus, my having gone first, this gave Robert a clear shot since he was following me. I had seen him do this before, usually to Delegate Jones. I wasn’t overjoyed with the situation, but I knew the audience was a lot smarter than Robert did. So I was amused really.

Then came City Council President Pantele. Robert at least had a certain modulation to his false attacks. But not Bill, he pandered unbelievably, making it sound as if I had called the arts folks everything but a child of God: Bill was way over top, telling the arts folks that what I had done was beyond the pale, the worst thing he had ever witnessed, the biggest injustice since he had witnessed in his time on Earth, or at least close to it by Richmond standards. Bill wanted to take me to the Tower, along with Saint Thomas More and Anne Boleyn. Off with his head!

I asked myself: What would they take this tactic at this time and place on this particular question? It seemed so out of sync with what they said on it a month ago.
That is to say: Why did they feel compelled to give such a negative, personal attack answer on Tuesday when they had not done that in all the months previous?

…The moderator asked a follow-up question that crystallized my thinking: He asked each candidate whether as Mayor, he would insist on a full accounting on all the monies that have gone into the project, since public funds comprise far more than 50% of the mix, that is to say by any standard, it is a mostly public project.

Dwight and I said yes, that when you have a project of this nature, the public is entitled to know all the fiscal facts, that is the normal course of things. Or to use the current phrase, full transparency. This was a no-brainer really.

Yet Robert and Bill refused: They said the public was not entitled to all the fiscal facts. For example, the public was not entitled per se to know the donor of private money to the project, even though that person or organization contributing the money might also be seeking the assistance of the Mayor and/or City Council on a matter worth millions to that person or group.

Then it hit me: Of Course!. How dense of me!

Robert and Bill had been making private assurances to key big financial players in Richmond to get them to back them for Mayor.

And then it hit me further: Given the current economic and financial situation facing the City and the nation, the Arts Center is likely to need the city to use public funds to bail them out in order to allow the Arts Center backers to receive certain special privileges worth millions to the backers, to cover an operating deficit, to keep certain monies flowing to certain entities, and perhaps for other costs related to building and operating the Arts Center.

“But of course!” I told myself. Why didn’t I see this weeks ago? The connection between the current situation in the economy and Wall Street relative to the Arts Center had not hit me until that moment.

Think about it: Assuming what we are seeing everyday in the newspapers turns out to be even half true, is this really the best time to be opening a new Arts Center?

As I have been saying for months now, Mr. Pantele and Mr. Wilder have created a fiscal mess in Richmond, spending more than the people could afford. Mr. Grey backs the fiscally irresponsible Wilder budget.

So then I got to thinking and asking people about some things relative to the Arts Center funding. And as it turns out, a close reading of the documents relating to the city’s commitment to the various financial issues involved with the Arts Center over the years - such promises agreed to do in all particulars by Mr. Grey and Mr. Pantele - reveals some interesting details about how much the public is being asked to underwrite what was sold as a private project, not a publicly-funded one.

There was a time with the RTD and Style and the Richmond Free Press actually cared about making sure the public knew the facts: and that was when I was the person leading the effort to get the public these facts for the first time, as the City Finance Director admitted.

But since I left, there has been almost no real reporting on the issue of how much public money has been spent, and how much public money has now been promised, on this issue.

AND FOR GOOD REASON PERHAPS.

I dare anyone to do the homework. I dare anyone to think again about the operating bailout given to the Arts Center by the City government, what they call a subsidy, but what is actually a bailout since the Arts Center said it would not need any such monies only a year ago.

Read the rest here…

Local press, are you up to Goldman’s challenge?

Simple questions need to be answered (and that’s one big reason why we need FOIA). Stuff like:

Is the city STILL on the hook for any financial shortfall if CenterStage’s public subsidy and private endowment can not cover costs?

Is Mr. Pantele correct about the project’s financing or will CitiBank have to decline buying the project’s proposed millions in historic tax credits in light of the current financial situation?

Also: Why can’t the CenterStage Foundation provide basic (verifiable) information about their current construction costs — including overruns — and a straight-up accounting of their “private fundraising” totals? Why can’t this information be made available on a bi-monthly basis to taxpayers, which was the original recommendation of the City Auditor?

Why can’t the business people behind CenterStage pass along this and other information to those who are currently putting together Richmond’s Cultural Action Plan, as all other area arts organizations have done? They seem to be waiting for something — an election, perhaps.

How about it, local press? Up to the challenge?


Mayoral Debate 2 - Question 8 from RVA News on Vimeo.

Thanks to Daniel Farrell and RVANews for the great (often absurd, sometimes disturbing) clips from Tuesday’s debate, hosted by Style Weekly.

Richmondecision 2: The Ooze

Wednesday, October 15th, 2008


Richmond Mayoral Debate - Programming at CenterStage from Daniel Farrell on Vimeo.

I can’t add much to the fine realtime blogging of the event over at RVANews — thanks to Daniel for the above clip — but last night’s mayoral debate at the Virginia Historical Society did tell us an awful (scary) lot about our candidates and what they think about the arts and education… and it also provided a window of insight into their tenuous grip on reality and the truth.

Some highlights/lowlights:

- Bill Pantele unveiled a potential new Richmond slogan in his opening comments: “Richmond has history that oozes every step you take.” Good branding there, Dollar Bill — that’s precisely how I envision a Pantele administration: An experience in ooze.

- Dwight Jones thinks that TheatreVirginia is still around. I repeat: Dwight Jones thinks TheatreVirginia is still around. Someone please tell the Rev. that TheatreVirginia closed down in 2002 and never reopened. (Read more on how this happened right here).

- At least three of the candidates (Grey, Pantele and Jones) hailed CenterStage as a main catalyst for the current rebirth of downtown, and for the area’s arts scene. This in spite of the fact that the center has yet to open.

- After you pick yourself up off the floor, read that again. [To his credit, Jones concurrently pledged that he would make the project transparent to taxpayers if elected]

- Ah, but Robert Grey claimed that the CenterStage/arts center project was wide open to taxpayer scrutiny and FOIA. In fact, he made sure to “correct” debate moderator Jason Roop on this fact.

But he knows better (I hope). The clause in the CenterStage agreement that shields the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation/Centerstage Foundation from Freedom of Information requirements states:

Section 20 (c) of the Comprehensive Agreement - Financial Statements: “On a periodic basis, as requested by the City, the LLLP and the Foundation shall furnish the City with current and complete financial statements — financial statements submitted as required by this subsection will not be subject to public disclosure.”

We not only have this on paper, we have it on video.


Pantele from Scott Burger on Vimeo.

Here, you can watch Bill Pantele shut down the vote at city council that would have amended the CenterStage document and opened it up to basic taxpayer transparency (thanks to Scott for the clip). As Mr. Grey can plainly see, his opponent shuts down the debate and urges his fellow city council members to pass the document quickly and with no provisions for transparency.

But that’s not all. Our fine lawmakers have also made sure that citizens will be unable to find out just what the CenterStage Foundation will be doing with the Landmark Theater, which they will also have control of. Section 4.1b of the Landmark agreement says:

“procurement records shall not be interpreted to include…(ii)financial records including balance sheets or financial statements of a private entity that are not generally available to the public through regulatory disclosure. For purposes of this subdivision, the term private entity means RPAC.

Does any of this sound “open” to you?

Of course, that’s not to say that you and I — John and Mary Q. Taxpayer — won’t be able to find information on CenterStage. We will find precisely the kind of well-funded propaganda that the operation was peddling in the days before the Mayor shut the original bloated project down. This recently-published glitzy mass mailer is the sort of thing that passes for a public financial statement from Richmond’s “Bridge To Nowhere.” You are probably paying for the printing of this glossy circular (although you’ll never know for sure). See anything about construction costs? Anything on salaries? Anything on consultant fees? Anything about how their Arts in Education program would work with the award-winning arts education programs already sponsored by Richmond’s Parks and Recreation Department? Anything verifiable at all here as it pertains to private fundraising?

As you can see, there are more questions than answers. But there are some great pictures of kids playing instruments so who cares? While we are talking about the so-called “public process” responsible for this, let’s remind Mr. Grey of his own history chairing a city performing arts committee that was largely closed to the public and never held a single widely-advertised public meeting. And here is more about how Mr. Grey’s committee actually “wrote” its plan.

I have to say that critics of the project took some hits last night from candidates who knew that they could say pretty much anything and — thanks to the rules of the debate — not be directly challenged. “Shame on those critics,” Bill Pantele said. I guess this shame should also extend to City Council Vice-president Delores McQuinn, who called Council President Pantele’s bullying tactics to pass CenterStage a “rush job.”

You can watch that here:


McQuinn from Scott Burger on Vimeo.

And to think, he did it all for Bon Jovi.

How interesting that Richmond’s performing arts center would be a hot topic of discussion in a recent issue of the Journal of Association Leadership, a quarterly guide for non-profit and association professionals published by ASAE and the Center For Association Leadership. While one can seriously dispute the author’s conclusions that there have been “lessons learned” and that genuine oversight and accountability (see the restrictive clauses above) have been implemented, it’s interesting that the professional non-profit world would see Richmond’s arts center — our “bridge to nowhere” — as an object lesson in what NOT to do.

I also have to laugh at the use of the terms, “hipsters” and “malcontents.” But here’s what the ASAE and the Center For Assocation Leadership had to say:

After several Freedom of Information Act requests and visits to their offices to acquire IRS Forms 990 for several years, two hipsters with a blog and a sense of mission nearly put the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation out of business. These two muckrakers uncovered nothing that was technically illegal at the foundation; however, they did find excessive expenditures, overinflated estimates of pledges and assets, and a fat salary for the organization’s CEO. This information, when disclosed on their blog, was enough to garner the attention of the public, the mainstream media, government officials, and politicians. The organization staunchly defended its position, hired the spin doctors, and attempted to explain away the accusations. They had an excuse for everything, but people using their common sense could only conclude that the foundation was guilty as charged. Ultimately, the foundation survived, though with far more government oversight and involvement than any association executive reading this journal would prefer.

VIRGINIA PERFORMING ARTS FOUNDATION: WHAT ARE THE LESSONS?

Transparency compels ethical decision making.

If the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation’s board and executive management had taken proactive steps towards transparency, they probably would have never approved the things that ultimately caused their downfall. There is no safe hiding place for unethical behavior. Freedom of information requests, whistleblower laws, citizen media, public distrust of business, Guidestar.org, and a number of other factors make it far too easy for an association that behaves unethically to be found out.

Appearing protective of information fuels distrust.

Effectively demonstrating that you have nothing to hide discourages malcontents from attempting to discover and discuss your organization’s problems.

Being constantly “on message” sends a negative signal.

People know when they’re being “pitched.” Just communicate honestly and authentically.

Honesty is the best policy.

Voluntarily disclosing mistakes made and outlining how they will be prevented in the future is far better than defending questionable decisions.

Today, candidate Paul Goldman sent out a statement and a blog post lambasting Pantele and Grey for their less-than-forthcoming historical revisionism last night, and for attacking “malcontents” for pointing out the art center’s protected status and prior misuse of public funds.

Paul Goldman, the only candidate for Mayor who had the public integrity years ago to demand a full accounting of the public funds wasted on the failed $100 million Arts Project project backed to the hilt by Mr. Grey and Mr. Pantele, and the candidate who actually came-up with a financing plan that saved the city millions while showing how to modernize the Carpenter Center and build a Performing Arts Center in a fiscally responsible way, issued the following statement this morning about last night’s debate:

“Last night, in an attempt to cover-up their own fiscal mistakes and political pandering that cost taxpayers millions, Mr. Grey and Mr. Pantele falsely suggested that somehow myself or others were allegedly making veiled personal attacks against individuals by merely demanding honesty in the accounting of taxpayer dollars spent by those behind the failed $100 Downtown Arts Project plan that Mr. Grey and Mr. Pantele backed to the bitter end.

Instead of attacking me for being the only staff person in the entire city government with the guts and public integrity to insist on a full public accounting of every taxpayer dollar spent on the failed and fiscally irresponsible $100 million Arts Center Project that had to be abandoned due to fiscal mistakes, I dare Mr. Pantele and Mr. Grey to face the public and make a full accounting on their involvement in a project that has helped create the current fiscal mess in city government, a fiscal mess create in part because Mr. Grey and Mr. Pantele are supporting two of the most fiscally irresponsible budget stances in recent city history.”

Goldman isn’t just spouting rhetoric. We’ve still yet to see the economic studies justifying the CenterStage plan that the Foundation once claimed existed.

Think about that for a moment — a project with this kind of controversial history, blessed with open-ended 40+ year funding and no transparency, one that hasn’t commissioned one single independent economic study justifying its existence, built in a town with a looming financial shortfall. And at last night’s debate, the front-running mayoral candidates held the project up as a beacon of culture and inclusion — suggesting that, even though it has not been built yet, CenterStage was somehow the catalyst that was transforming Broad Street.

Can you feel the ooze?

Shhhh… You’ll Wake the Candidates

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

Another mayoral debate is scheduled tonight and this one has a bit of a different theme:

The five candidates for mayor of the city of Richmond will gather Tuesday, Oct. 14, for part two of our three-part series, Richmond Decision ‘08. The forum, which is open to the public, will focus on Education and the Cultural Landscape.

The event will be held at the Virginia Historical Society, 428 N. Boulevard. It begins with a reception at 5:30 p.m., with a program following from 6-8 p.m. Audience space is plentiful, but is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The panel of journalists posing questions to the candidates will be Brandon Reynolds, arts and culture editor at Style Weekly; Sandra Jones, news reporter at WTVR-TV/CBS 6; and Michael Paul Williams, columnist for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Style Weekly Editor Jason Roop will moderate. Audience members will also have an opportunity to submit questions for consideration.

The forums are blogged in real time on RVANews.com and recorded for broadcast the following Friday at 1 p.m. by WRIR-LP 97.3 FM radio, and streaming at wrir.org.

The forums are sponsored by Style Weekly, the League of Women Voters, the Virginia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, the Coalition for a Greater Richmond and the Virginia United Methodist Board of Church and Society.

Good timing. You see, I’m sensing some malaise out there. The candidates and Richmond voters appear to be bored and listless. They’ve had to answer the same questions a zillion times and we’ve had to listen to the same answers over and over — baseball, baseball, baseball. During a debate on Saturday, one candidate, Dwight Jones, had to assure the crowd that, despite all the yawns and the snoring, the would-be Mayors were still conscious and ready to inform the electorate:

“Don’t worry if any of us look bored up here, we’re not,” he said. “It’s just that we’ve heard each others’ speeches 25 times. We could give each others’ speeches.”

Hmmmm… perhaps some new questions are in order here. Let’s see: The arts and education. I’m pretty sure that we can find something fresh to talk about on those subjects, right?

Like, or instance (and this is just an example of the type of question that could be asked if people were so inclined to quiz these folks about their own past deeds and actions as they relate to the arts, education and funding priorities):

What is the bigger priority: Spending Richmond tax money on new and renovated schools… or giving it away with little oversight to private arts foundations that have already wasted $10 million of our money?

Or… how about these oldies but goodies:

Should the business community and their out-of-town consultants run the arts community… or should the arts community run the arts community?

Should we spend more of our tax dollars on existing arts and cultural programs that actually do work “for the children”? See here and here and here and here and especially here.

Should we spend our tax dollars on arts endeavors that have had a measurable impact on economic development or with those arts organizations that have the biggest budgets and the biggest campaign contributors behind them?

And last, but not least:

Should arts and cultural organizations be transparent when it comes to spending the public money they receive?

Whatever we do, folks, let’s not startle the candidates too much with too many hard questions that they have yet to tackle on the campaign trail. Well, OK, maybe just enough to rouse these guys (and the rest of us) from Snoozeville.

I guess it is is time to wake up. I understand that there’s an election soon.

And Now We Know!

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

Yow!

And we were just talking about the reinvention of Richmond. I’d say we’re on a roll here.

Yes, the Downtown Master Plan has passed, by a surprising 8-0 vote at Richmond City Council*. Hot dang ziggity! All the gripes and the stammers and the hiccups and the uncertainties are behind us (for now — there are apparently going to be “changes”), and Richmond’s downtown now has a plan.

And you know what we’ve always said around here at Save Richmond, we need another plan.

No, but this one’s different — read it here. This one sets out a new course for downtown that eschews the big and expensive mega-project, and (among other things) embraces the RU-VAH! Here are the seven foundations of the Downtown Master Plan:

1. Variety and Choice
Promote Richmond’s competitive advantage by further diversifying land uses, building types and sizes, and providing a full range of transportation options. Urban environments are complex and adaptable. Cities are naturally mixed-use, mixed-income, and multi-modal.

2. Traditional City
Pedestrians and transit riders thrive in traditional cities. Downtown Richmond has the street network and much of the historic architecture in place to support a rebirth of traditional modes of transportation. encourage these alternative modes of transportation by restoring the two-way traffic pattern, re-introducing a trolley system, and reconsidering parking requirements for urban buildings.

3. Green
Great parks and sustainable design make cities livable. Attract new residents and visitors to Downtown with an integrated system of urban parks. Celebrate Richmond’s existing park system, and increase public access to parks. Initiate an ambitious street tree campaign. Incorporate sustainable design into all new buildings and infrastructure projects in order to create a fully “green” city. For example, streets should be designed to lower stormwater impact by incorporating street trees and planting strips, where appropriate.

4. River
The James River is Richmond’s “great, wet Central Park.” Allow residents and visitors to fully enjoy this unique natural feature by creating a series of clear connections to the riverfront. Develop a comprehensive system of natural open space along the river and create green connec-
tions between city parks and the riverfront. expand existing recreational activity along the river, such as waterfront festivals, kayaking and rowing. Preserve views to the river by limiting building heights and protecting important view sheds.

5. Urban Architecture
We can learn many lessons from Richmond’s historic urban architecture. Require all new construction within the Downtown to respect and reinforce its urban location, relating to the scale and character of the adjacent buildings and fronting the street with windows and primary entrances. Promote ground-floor, street facing retail, residential, and office uses, and ensure that parking garages are lined with street-front buildings.

6. History
Richmond’s past is one of its most valuable assets for the future. Celebrate and promote Richmond’s history with an aggressive historic preservation program and a coordinated system of history trails, museums, and interpretive sites. Focus not only on “historic” events but also reveal the day-to-day story of the city, for example by exposing the cobblestones beneath Downtown’s asphalt streets.

7. Mixed Income
Healthy cities cater to economic diversity. In order for Richmond to achieve vibrancy Downtown, it must encourage economic diversity. Attainable housing for current Downtown residents and newcomers is important to ensuring economic diversity as more investment occurs and new housing is provided. Mixed commerce should be encouraged, so that residents at all income levels can fulfill their daily needs within reasonable proximity of their home.

Even as we guardedly await implementation of the DMP, it’s hard to say who deserves more thanks for this. This plan has so many heroes behind it — but let’s start with L. Douglas Wilder. He has been criticized on these pages, and elsewhere (and elsewhere and elsewhere), and one might argue that he could have advocated for the plan a bit more. But he’s the Mayor who brought Rachel Flynn to town as Developer of Community Development. How about Rachel Flynn? She’s an obvious choice for MVP for spearheading this, although you have to thank Dover-Kohl for their inclusive charrette-style workshops and hands-on style (unlike many consultants, they knew their business). What about City Council? Or the Planning Commission? They might not have liked a lot of it, but they understood in the end that this was the People’s Plan (now let’s hope they don’t mess with it too much). Kudos to them. And how about we The People ourselves — hundreds — who came out to Plant Zero to participate in the charrettes, and followed up with emails and seminars and petitions? Give a round of applause, please! And how about John Sarvay at Buttermilk & Molasses? He showed, once again, that when original reporting meets dynamic blogging, the results can be magic. Nominate him too. John’s always informative work has been the best overview yet of the plan itself, the public process, and the wrangling — read it here. And while we’re at it, let’s thank the local press and the editorial writers for giving this plan the serious attention it deserved.

Lastly, you’ve got to give it up to Jim Ukrop, who wore a green “Pass the Plan” sticker at council last night, and delivered the most eloquent speech in favor of the proposal. I will now eat Ukrop’s macaroni and cheese again.

Dang, Richmond. If this keeps up, Henrico and Chesterfield are going to want our address back.

Kudos all!

* [Update: I originally reported that the vote was 9-0 but this was incorrect - Councilwoman Delores McQuinn was absent last night so the unanimous vote was 8-0.]

Tonight’s The Night

Monday, October 13th, 2008

Downtown MonopolyIt’s a big night. We’ll either have a new Downtown Master Plan this evening… or Richmond will have a brand new Exhibit A to show how local leaders disregard the opinions and wishes of its citizens.

Tonight’s the night that Richmond City Council will finally vote on Richmond’s new Downtown Plan (at 6PM in council chambers on the 2nd floor of City Hall). It has to be voted on this evening or the document legally must go back to the drawing board. [For more background on the DMP, take Save Richmond's "E-Z 2 Love Your Downtown Plan" and "E-Z 2 Dismiss Your Downtown Plan" quizzes! Fun AND disturbing, here's where you can test your knowledge of such things as public charrettes, form-based codes and Richmond's long history of Feudal rule!]

Unfortunately, I’ve heard about one City Council member who plans to vote against the plan tonight, and there could be others. This, even though a record number of citizens participated in giving input into the proposal — and many more have voiced their approval for the plan.

As foolish as it might sound, I have also discovered that some big developer interests will actually stand up and argue tonight that this is a plan cooked up by lefty agitators who hate “responsible” riverfront blockage and who have no right to say a single unkind word about VCU and who have come to steal all our precious bodily fluids, etc. etc. etc…. For some, it’s clearly desperation time — time to say just about anything to stall or derail the plan.

So it might be a real good idea to remind your city councilperson that you support the plan and that you will be closely watching their vote tonight. If you can’t make tonight’s City Council meeting — and, unfortunately, it’s looking bad for yours truly — make sure you let them know your thoughts. I know I’ve given my rep an earful, and I hear there is an election coming up for most of these pols. (Good news: If you can’t make it, John Sarvay will be live-blogging the meeting tonight at Buttermilk & Molasses so you can be fully informed).

And, since you are bound to hear just about ANYTHING tonight to justify shelving this proposal, it’s worth noting a few VERY interesting facts about the Downtown Master Plan being voted on. Just so you don’t get confused by any loose rhetoric unleashed tonight about commies and fluoridation:

- The public process behind this plan has been the most inclusive and thorough in Richmond history, involving hundreds of citizens.

A good thing? Not to some of Richmond’s power brokers. Michael Paul Williams of the Richmond Times-Dispatch attended a work session of the Richmond Planning Commission in January and found that its members longed for the days when developers and connected VIP’s huddled together to make these kinds of decisions for the rest of us:

Frankly, some of the comments that came out of Wednesday’s meeting of the Planning Commission would sound more appropriate at a gathering of the university’s board of visitors or the Rams Booster Club.

“If VCU really needs to pull down West Hospital, they’re going to pull down West Hospital,” [Commission Chairman Robert] Mills said.

“They’re kind of able to do what they want,” said commission member William M. Hutchins. “Why alienate them? They do a tremendous amount for the city.”

Yes, they do, but that’s hardly the point. Heck, guys. Why not just fire up the crane and operate the wrecking ball?

VCU has joined the ranks of city power brokers who can’t quite shake the we-know-best paternalism that has long defined Richmond. This is noblesse oblige on steroids

But folks, VCU is us. Those state buildings are our buildings. VCU shouldn’t get to make this call unilaterally. And if our effrontery offends, what can VCU do? Relocate to Gwinnett County, Ga.?

The pushback was not unexpected by Rachel Flynn, the city’s visionary director of community development.

“I think the approach we took is a new model for the city — bottom up, rather than top down,” she said. “I think in the past, plans have been developed by small committee rather than a group of citizens that comes out.”

Sounds suspiciously like an outbreak of democracy in Richmond.

- And on that note, it is worth mentioning that approximately “twenty persons” gave input into the previous Downtown Plan, proposed in 1996.

‘Nuff said.

- All five Mayoral candidates say that they are for the proposed DMP.

‘Nuff said again.

- Even those rabblerousing socialists over at the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial page are in favor of the Downtown Master Plan:

The process for establishing a vision for Richmond’s downtown — which serves as Virginia’s downtown — has proceeded for many months; we cannot remember a more open exercise regarding public policy. The officials involved and the public participants deserve a cheer.

We recommend approval of the Draft Downtown Master Plan. And we recognize that downtown — in place and in spirit — always will remain a work in progress.

‘Nuff said… and Mega-Dittos!

- At least one of the councilpeople who has “problems” with the plan (and may vote against it) never hosted a single constituent meeting in their district to talk about the plan.

If your representative plans to vote no tonight, but never asked you for your input and thoughts, it might be a real opportune time to ask them how they reached their decision, who they did consult… and why they left you out.

- People who argue that the Downtown Master Plan proposal does not include the wishes and voices of critics are incorrect. If anything, the plan has been considerably watered-down from its original draft to include “last minute” changes by developers, VCU and the state.

As Ed Slipek explained (in a must-read piece) for Style Weekly:

Such hypersensitivity on the part of the big boys would be amusing if it wasn’t so revealing about the way they apparently see downtown — as something to be carved up into fiefdoms and developed as they see fit. The greater good be damned!

The downtown master plan must serve many masters and constituencies — property owners, environmentalists, preservationists, public officials — and each has differing priorities. But if the larger players don’t understand their role in stitching together a vital downtown, then it can never operate as the spectacularly dynamic marketplace of goods, services, ideas, culture and research it could be.

Richmond’s downtown is relatively fragile, so it behooves those who have vetted — and weakened — the master plan to tread more lightly and relinquish their sticks.

Is it a good plan? Yes. Is it needed? Absolutely. But gated communities or corporate, institutional or governmental principalities need to be dissolved and the attitude that creates them must be given a time-out.

Amen to that.

So what kind of city is this? Do we live in a community that values input from a wide cross-section of its citizens?

Or do we still live in a place where connected power brokers game the system in order to carve the city up into their own monopolistic fiefdoms, the rest of us be damned?

We will find out tonight.