Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ch-scene - Re: More news on Theatergate (N&O, Herald letter)

ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: RTP-area local music and culture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Duncan Murrell <dvmurrell AT nc.rr.com>
  • To: RTP-area local music and culture <ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: More news on Theatergate (N&O, Herald letter)
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:03:10 -0400

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page