RTP-area local music and culture

[James Hepler <jameshepler AT yahoo.com>]

Mayor Bell spent five minutes apeaking in support of
the proposal.  No one who was against it was given any
time to speak until AFTER the vote.  And even then,
only after we made it clear that the meeting was on
hold until our concerns were addressed.

Mayor Bell lied to us, straight faced.  He asked if
there was ONE person who could represent the group. 
Of course, the answer was no.  Such is the nature of
the grassroots.  We all represent ourselves.  He later
went on to say that he asked if "someone" wanted to
speak about it.  He had probably two dozen yellow
cards in front of him that answered that question.

Not one council member stood up in support of the
dozens of people who patiently waited for HOURS for a
chance to address the issue.  

They keep telling us we'll get the chance to air our
concerns.  Later.  As one person said, what they did
last night was to say, "We've been making this mistake
for five years, let's continue making it for four more
months."

Hep

--- info AT durhamloop.org wrote:
> 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



        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/