Dear Mr. Cline,
 
I sent a note similar to the following to you today on the Almanac blog responding to your comments there as well as councils's vote last night. Currently there are two dozen additional responses -every one of them strongly negative. This proposal was unreasonable from the start. The waste of staff time is significant and the outcome is outrageous. Please strongly reconsider your vote.
 
Thank you,
 
Alan Block
 
 
 
Mr. Cline, In your comments, you stated you feel that, "the theater is a valuable asset" and that it is, "a worthy facility to rescue".

 
Obviously, the theater is not a historical building in the traditional sense -the historical society does not see it that way, and it is not listed on any historic register. The building is no longer used as a theater and most likely never will be again. It doesn't look historical. If you walk around it, you will see that it is a plain old concrete industrial style building with only the false facade of an art deco theater. A facade that can easily be replicated elsewhere. Even if the lobby is restored, it will not be seen by the public. So I ask you, what makes it such a "valuable asset" for our community? Is it really such "a worthy facility to rescue", as to preclude something new and financially viable that would not tie up a significant amount of city funds and simultaneously remove commercial property from the tax rolls?

 
Council has directed staff to put together a deal with Andy Duncan's team based on the parameters in the article. The fundamental terms are there, a deal in principle and intent, only the details are not. Clearly it is a below market sweetheart deal for Mr. Duncan providing a substantial subsidy by the city to a for profit venture of questionable overall community benefit. I do understand the value of having a quality private dance program, but the cost of this part of the project is excessive. If Mr. Duncan had the funds available to make this work, fine, but apparently he does not. If the city wanted to pay for the restoration of the facade as an historical art project, great, but buying the building for Mr. Duncan is an unjustified, inappropriate and excessive use of city funds.

 
You didn't mention the rest of the deal - the 2.2 million to be paid to Mr. Crittendon for the building. It has been vacant for years and clearly if he could have sold it for that much long ago, he would have. Based on current zoning, it is worth far less per foot than the former Cadillac property across the street and the price appears to be significantly over today's market value. Mr. Crittendon also benefits greatly from the city expediting a deal, and there is apparently no real estate commission - at 6% of the overall price, something in the neighborhood of 132,000.00 that he would typically have to pay.

 
This looks like a restructuring of the previous proposal where Mr. Duncan wanted to borrow 500,000.00 from the city. That would have been a bad deal, and this is just as bad tying up even more capitol. This deal does not save the theater for the community. That part of the building's life is over. And, if the city is going to provide financial backing, where is the public process to find better alternatives? There are far more reasonable and better uses for our funds, including acquiring real property in other more appropriate areas that would have far broader community benefits.
 
This is an opportunity we should pass on.
Received on Wed Oct 3 23:20:42 2007