RTP-area local music and culture

[Duncan Murrell <dvmurrell AT nc.rr.com>]

I believe he left off "sponsorships" because sponsorship is 
specifically not a part of the plan as currently proposed. (In part, 
because potential sponsors like Duke University aren't interested, but 
that's another story.) I could be wrong about that, but that's been my 
impression. Here's how he explains leaving off the category that would 
include "sponsorships" (slide 11):

"*Fundraising
 *Government grants
 *Local government subsidy

The last three are not included in the next slide because they are not 
part of the Durham theater plan, but are shown in the hand-out table"

When I was serving on the boards of a couple of nonprofits, including 
one arts nonprofit, I remember that we used to lump "sponsorship" under 
"fundraising." (I may be mixing my terms, however. I wasn't ever a very 
good board member, and tended to fall asleep.)

The author of the presentation goes on to say this, which I believe 
makes the point you're making, that a sponsorship might be a good 
thing, given the fact that "many public-owned theaters" use them to 
supplement their revenue (slide 23):

" *Based on these benchmarks, highly likely that the Durham Downtown 
Theater construction costs will be in the $65-75 million range for a 
4,000 seat variable configuration theater

  *Most cities have followed a model of raising most of the 
construction money prior to construction start recognizing that subsidy 
of ongoing operating costs will be required and that the theater will 
return no funds toward repayment of loans

  *Other cities are not only proposing raising the entire construction 
costs in advance but also an endowment fund to cover the inevitable 
operating losses (Dallas and Las Vegas)"

Again, I may be getting my terms mixed up, but he seems to be saying 
that raising money prior to construction, rather than taking out 
partial or full  construction loans, are ideas that bear consideration. 
If he believes that floating a big note up front may work against the 
interest of the theater, I'm assuming he means that the fundraising 
would be directed at public/private sources and donors, some of whom 
may very well be "sponsors."  Certainly, the idea of an "endowment" 
does not exclude the idea of a "sponsorship"; in fact, it seems to 
imply the presence of a sponsor or several sponsors.

(By the way, this part of his presentation gives the lie to Mayor 
Bell's contention that the folks who showed up at the meeting simply 
don't want a theater, period. That may be true of many, but this guy 
uses a number of slides to propose possible ways of making such a 
theater work; his beef seems to be that the city isn't being at all 
realistic.)

But  I haven't fact checked his slide presentation, no.


d



On Jun 9, 2004, at 10:27 AM, richard sawyer wrote:

> umm.  has anybody fact-checked that power-point presentation?
>
> i don't know much about finance or event centers, but, off the top of
> my head, i would point out that nowhere in the document is a data set
> for "sponsorships," a category that many public-owned theatres (the
> carolina theatre included) use to supplement revenue.
>
> i mean, the author is bright and very nice.  but, i wouldn't throw all
> my rotten eggs at one chart, if you get where i'm going...
>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: dvmurrell AT nc.rr.com
> To: ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:58:43 AM
> Subject: Re: More news on Theatergate (N&O, Herald letter)
>
> I offer these comments as a feeling-guilty bystander:
>
> Having read this and the H-S article, I'd say that perhaps a little
> more work could be done to get it across to the press that the
> objections of that "young crowd" go beyond objections to the Clear
> Channel. I read that PowerPoint presentation, and it deserved much
> more
> consideration than the throw-away line buried in the second-to-last
> graf of the N&O article, "a local technology manager ...  presented
> data collected from theaters across the country to show they are
> money-losers." I thought the presentation was much more nuanced than
> that, and much more devastating. When the words "money-loser" and
> "Clear Channel" get equal weight in these articles, I think the effort
> will start to win over the people who, at the moment, aren't paying
> attention.
>
> If you all are still willing to put together a website, I'd help
> write/edit some stuff.
>
> d
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2004, at 8:30 AM, info AT durhamloop.org wrote:
>
> > Stifled debate unsettles council
> >
> > http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1317423p-7439885c.html
> >
> >
> > By MARGIE FISHMAN, Staff Writer
> >
> > DURHAM -- Three City Council members said they regretted their votes
> to
> > continue negotiations with the developer of a planned downtown
> theater
> > without hearing from nearly 30 people who had signed up to speak at
> a
> > public
> > meeting Monday.
> >
> > "It was probably not our finest hour," said council member Eugene
> > Brown, who
> > explained that he was suffering from "fanny fatigue and mental
> > fatigue" when
> > he agreed to curtail the debate shortly before 11 p.m. Monday.
> >
> > Brown, joined by council members Thomas Stith and Diane Catotti,
> said
> > they
> > would have preferred more public comment before the vote, if only to
> > debunk
> > the perception that they were immune to criticism of the deal.
> >
> > Mayor Bill Bell quashed public comment on the $42 million theater
> > project
> > Monday and pushed a vote that allows the city to continue
> negotiating
> > for
> > the next four months with a development team that includes Clear
> > Channel
> > Entertainment. He also directed City Manager Marcia Conner to set up
> > monthly
> > public forums on the project.
> >
> > "He was saying how important the public process is, and then he cuts
> > off
> > public comment," said John Schelp, who attended the meeting and is
> > president
> > of the Old West Durham Neighborhood Association. "It was actually
> > pretty
> > amazing. I've never seen anything like it."
> >
> > Bell reaffirmed his decision Tuesday, explaining that it was late
> and
> > that
> > opponents had an opportunity to voice their opinions by e-mail and at
> > earlier meetings.
> >
> > "We do care what they have to say," he said. "What I was trying to
> do
> > was to
> > provide a forum that was more meaningful." Bell, who routinely lets
> > members
> > of the public exceed established time limits, described his actions
> > Monday
> > as "an exception."
> >
> > Council member Howard Clement agreed with the move. Clement said he
> > knew
> > going into the meeting that most comments would be against building
> the
> > theater, which was "not on the agenda."
> >
> > Local artists and downtown residents have protested plans to have San
> > Antonio-based Clear Channel manage and book shows at the theater,
> > saying the
> > company excludes people on the fringe and tramples on free speech.
> > Now, they
> > accuse their elected officials of the same.
> >
> > Bell "wants an events center, and he doesn't understand why these
> > people
> > won't let him to do it," said Alex Kostelnik, artistic director of
> the
> > Scrap
> > Exchange, who was among the people muted Monday. "It's a power
> play."
> > On
> > Tuesday, Kostelnik said he met with other stunned project opponents,
> > all
> > asking the same question: "Did that really happen?"
> >
> > The theater extension appeared Monday on the council's consent
> agenda,
> > which
> > doesn't require a public hearing. Typically, the council disposes of
> > the
> > consent agenda at the beginning of a meeting, but Bell moved up a
> > public
> > hearing on the upcoming budget, after he said several residents
> > requested
> > it.
> >
> > Four hours later, after 70 people had jockeyed for their priorities,
> > and one
> > resident rehashed concerns over access to an Old North Durham park --
>
> > an
> > issue discussed at length during the last council meeting -- the
> > council
> > took up the 4,000-seat theater, what could be the largest theater in
> > the
> > state, subsidized by $24 million in public funds.
> >
> > Clement initially drew applause by criticizing a Clear Channel-owned
> > station
> > for making "racist" comments about American idol winner and High
> Point
> > hometown girl Fantasia Barrino. But he said he would support the
> > extension,
> > because he wasn't ready to kill the project.
> >
> > Bell then asked the 28 people who had filled out yellow cards to
> > select a
> > representative to speak for them. When they refused, the council
> > swiftly
> > approved the item 6-1. John Best Jr., the only council member to
> raise
> > concerns about limiting public comment at the time, said he dissented
> > because the city has more pressing needs than a theater. A majority
> of
> > council members could have voted to overrule Bell, according to the
> > council
> > procedures.
> >
> > The vote disgusted some weary audience members, who hollered that it
> > was an
> > insult to democracy. After the vote, four opponents were permitted
> to
> > speak,
> > including a local technology manager who presented data collected
> from
> > theaters across the country to show they are money-losers.
> >
> > Catotti said Tuesday she was uncomfortable with how the meeting
> > unfolded. "I
> > didn't have a creative solution at the time," she said. "I think it
> was
> > unfortunate."
> >
> > Staff writer Margie Fishman can be reached at 956-2405 or
> > mfishman AT newsobserver.com.
> >
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Ask ADF what it needs
> > Herald-Sun letter to editor
> >
> > http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/index.html#488883
> >
> > I love ADF, you love ADF, we all love ADF.
> >
> > Serious questions arise, though, on how the proposed American Center
> > for The
> > Performing Arts can mesh with Durham and its arts and artists,
> > including the
> > American Dance Festival. The sketch of the center looks dandy --
> bland
> > on
> > bland. It matches up nicely with the nearby Durham County Jail.
> >
> > Compare this with the art and aesthetics of Durham. Durham is lively,
> > enticing, alluring and downright funky. The American Center proposal
> > is none
> > of the above. It blends with Durham's aesthetics as well as the jail
> > does.
> > The arts in Durham are mostly homegrown, allowing a wide variety of
> > styles
> > and moods. The proposed center, apparently to be run by a monolithic
> > corporation, allows neither.
> >
> > The proposed center doesn't really meet ADF's needs. It is too large
> > for
> > most dance performances. Perhaps Durham would be better off asking
> ADF
> > what
> > it really needs and find a more Durham-like building to adapt for the
> > festival.
> >
> > MARGARET CAMPBELL
> > Durham
> > June 9, 2004
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> RattleJar  www.rattlejar.com
> 3 Winston Place
> Chapel Hill, NC  27514
> o: 919.933.1091  fax: 919.933.1092
>
> -- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene
>
> -- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RattleJar  www.rattlejar.com
3 Winston Place
Chapel Hill, NC  27514
o: 919.933.1091  fax: 919.933.1092