RTP-area local music and culture

[rick sawyer <rickbang AT gmail.com>]

> Actually, the Council voted at least 6-1 in favor of every step of the
> theater -- including the original Clear Channel proposal. Pressure from the
> community (including many from this list) helped get rid of Clear Channel,
> and get rid of the ill-conceived "convertible" design for a flat-floor
> coliseum for rock shows, with seats they could "roll in" to turn it into a
> traditional "theater" for the American Dance Festival during the summer.

i was at the city council meeting where the hipsters stood up against
the clear channel proposal.  i have not seen a more misinformed, rude,
and self-indulgent group of people at a political meeting in my life. 
and that group includes many from this list.  the reason that so many
made idiots of themselves -- appearing en masse at a citywide budget
meeting thinking that the clear channel theater was the principal
agenda item -- had a lot to do with the half-informed ranting that
spewed forth on this listserv.

the proposal died because it had no support outside of the developers
who proposed it.  when you say that the city council voted "at least
6-1 in favor of every step of the theater" you are being a bit
disingenuous.  the city council never voted to approve any
construction project, and it never approved anything.

now, i'm not saying that citizen pressure had nothing to do with their
decision to back off.  but, i would argue that opposition from more
traditional durham political action groups -- and the outright lack of
support amongst city leaders -- had a lot more to do with the decision
than anything else.

ultimately, what i found disgusting about the Intervention of the
Hipsters was how little effort was made to find common ground with
those groups.  downtown durham, inc. and ABCD struck me then, and they
strike me now, as a middle class, white pro-new-urbanist developer
front unwilling to support, if not accomodate, the community that
already exists in the downtown spaces.


> Rick Sawyer wrote:
> >on the other hand, you have an extreme, offhanded and poorly conceived
> >policy suggestion on the part of a single county commisioner that was
> >dismissed immediately by the rest of the commission.
>
> This proposal didn't originate this week from one county commissioner. It is
> part of a larger agenda that has been in the works for some time. Trust me
> on this one; I know the people who are pushing this agenda.

pardon me if i don't "trust you on this one."  the newspaper article
you linked -- the only exterior source you provided -- does not
support the conclusions you are drawing.  present us with evidence. 
don't do the thinking for us.

> Rick Sawyer wrote:
> >besides, there's not much in the way of "downtown entertainment" for
> >"Durham" to "kill" no matter how much it "wants" to do so.
>
> Why do you think people aren't opening entertainment businesses in downtown
> Durham? Why are tumbleweeds blowing down Main St in Durham -- when every
> other town around here has some sort of life on its main street? That is my
> point. It is no accident.

i'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with money.  why are so many
buildings downtown owned but unoccupied?  if it's a change in zoning
laws that is going to prevent this magical downtown from springing out
of thin air, where is the downtown that is possible with our current
zoning laws?  gee, might it be that all the investment capital is tied
up in "southpoint north" and the yuppie-hanger apartment buildings
that line main and duke streets?

besides which, i don't know when you were downtown last, but there is
plenty of "life" on its main street.  it just isn't white and indie
rock.  sorry.

Rick Sawyer wrote:
>>it sounds to me like the system works!  all hail the durham "'leadership.'"

i guess irony *is* dead.

>I'm glad to hear you have such blind faith in the governance and intentions
>of the leadership in Durham.

it sounds like you have some pretty blind faith in the pro-developer
lobby fronted by downtown durham, inc.  that was the hidden thread of
my last post, and i'm sorry to have to make it more explicit.

>Go to sleep for a few years. Then check back and see what has happened in
>the absence of citizen involvement and oversight.

i think that would be the american tobacco campus.  this is the sort
of development that i, personally, find abhorent, and it's the sort of
development that your supporters promote.

lay your cards on the table, caleb.  if you are such a hero of the
people, let us know which people you are pulling for.

rick!