RTP-area local music and culture

[" mel" <mel AT pressgangrocks.com>]

THANKS for going and speaking Caleb (additional thanks to all the others as 
well)!  I was unable to go, but watched on public access and the way the 
council rushed that through was disturbing to say the least. We've all got to 
keep the pressure up and educate these people about Clear Channel   -- it's 
obvious that most of them know nothing about who they are ready to jump in 
bed with!
Melissa


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: <info AT durhamloop.org>
Reply-To: RTP-area local music and culture <ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date:  Tue, 8 Jun 2004 04:28:04 -0400

>For those of you who did not make it, history was made at Durham City
>Council Monday night, concerning Clear Channel and the proposed "Event
>Center". 
>
>After over 60 people waited four hours (from 7pm to 11pm) to speak on the
>issue, Mayor Bill Bell pushed a vote through to extend the study of this
>proposal with NO PUBLIC COMMENT, filibustered for 45 minutes, and DENIED the
>public a chance to speak.
>
>In response to public outcry, the mayor then allowed four of us to address
>the council (but not everyone who wished to speak). 
>
>Among other things, we have criticized this proposal for the lack of
>transparency and no open public process. This was the first opportunity in
>the five year history of this project for citizens to actually address
>Durham City Council. Mayor Bell, by denying the public an opportunity to
>speak, proved the point that this is a closed process, a done deal
>attempting to sidestep the democratic process and the voice and concerns of
>the public. They are trying to ram this thing through, Clear Channel et al,
>against the will of the people.
>
>I URGE each and every one of you (especially those of you who attended the
>meeting and were denied the opportunity to speak) to email your comments to
>Durham City Council.
>
>council AT ci.durham.nc.us;mconner AT ci.durham.nc.us;info AT durhamloop.org
>
>Below are my comments I addressed to council (as one of the few people they
>reluctantly granted an opportunity to speak).
>
>Thanks!
>Caleb Southern
>
>****
>
>June 7, 2004 comments to City Council
>Event Center extension (Consent Agenda Item # 40)
>
>
>Mr. Mayor and Members of City Council,
>
>I appreciate the intentions behind the proposed 4000-seat Event Center
>downtown. And I appreciate all of the work that city staff, DDI, and the
>development team have put into this proposal so far. Some of you have raised
>concerns about the financial viability of this project. I would like to add
>several other areas of concern for you to consider.
>
>First of all, I do not want to see the City of Durham do business with Clear
>Channel Entertainment. Clear Channel dominates the radio and concert
>promotion industries across the country. In Denver, an independent concert
>promoter recently sued Clear Channel for anti-competitive practices. The
>allegations were that Clear Channel radio stations refused to advertise
>non-Clear Channel concerts, and pulled bands booking shows with the
>competition off their radio playlists. Clear Channel asked the judge to
>throw the suit out, and the judge ruled that the case had merit and let it
>proceed.
>
>In the Triangle, Clear Channel owns five radio stations and controls Walnut
>Creek Amphitheater. Adding a 4000-seat theater in Durham to their roster
>would allow them to squash competing local concert promoters, just like in
>Denver. This is just one of many complaints about the business practices of
>this company.
>
>I would also like to point out an interesting comparison. The Dodge Theater
>in Phoenix (a model for the Durham proposal) drew 144,000 people last year
>to a 4000-seat venue that cost over $40M to build and requires public
>subsidies. By contrast the Cat's Cradle is a privately owned venue in this
>area run by an independent local concert promoter. With a capacity of only
>615, it draws 85,000 people per year. You don't need a giant national
>company and huge public subsidies to draw large concert audiences.
>
>Clear Channel got where they are today due to FCC deregulation of media
>ownership rules, despite widespread public outcry against media
>consolidation. Clear Channel's growth has greatly limited the number of
>voices of the airwaves in most communities across the country, including our
>own. In my opinion, Clear Channel is attempting a hostile corporate takeover
>of the First Amendment.
>
>This is not about Walmart bashing or Microsoft bashing. This is about free
>speech. The FCC may not have listened to the public, but the City of Durham
>does not have to do business with this company.
>
>Secondly we need to take care of the resources we already have. The Carolina
>Theater, Arts Council, and Armory buildings are in need of maintenance and
>upgrades. This is part of a much greater city-wide problem of deferred
>maintenance. Let's show that we can fix what we have before using public
>dollars to build something new.
>
>Finally, I am very concerned about the process that got us to this point. My
>understanding is that originally there was talk about the Terry Sanford
>Institute building a performing arts center in Durham. When that project was
>moved out of Durham, Clear Channel (then SFX) pitted Durham and Greensboro
>against each other to build a new 4000-seat theater. Since then, two
>competing bids (both involving Clear Channel) came forward, and the current
>development team was selected. It appears that it was decided back in 1999
>to build a 4000-seat theater on the proposed location for Clear Channel. And
>then the process was reverse-engineered to justify this outcome. 
>
>Meanwhile the public at large was not consulted on this. The North Carolina
>Department of Transportation conducts more open and inclusive public
>hearings than what I have seen on this theater so far.
>
>A proper process would have asked the public the following questions:
>- Does Durham want a new theater?
>- Does Durham need a new theater?
>- If so where should it be?
>- How big should it be?
>- Who should manage it?
>- Who should own it?
>. . . And so on.
>
>Had these questions been asked several years ago, you would have already
>known (among other things) the public concerns about Clear Channel. It is
>also unclear why ADF is being discussed in this context when Duke has
>proposed building a new performing arts center on Central Campus to replace
>Page Auditorium. 
>
>I urge you to vote against the extension, stop the current process, and look
>toward starting a new open process in the future that involves the public
>and asks the right questions up front. Then maybe we can end up with a
>proposal that actually enjoys public support.
> 
>
>
>-- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene
>