City By The James

Burning Down the House

2005-11-10T20:39:00.000-08:00

When city officials inspected the Carpenter Center last week, they were vague about what they found:

Farrar said the inspectors didn't find a need to close off the building or any of its parts for safety reasons. He described Cooper's visit as a typical inspection.

They took a look a look around, found no reason to condemn the building and left. That’s how it sounded. However, it should be clear that Mayor Wilder does things, or has them done, for a reason. It seems the inspectors did find problems at the Carpenter Center:

The Carpenter Center is a fire hazard, with sewer gas leaking inside and more violations of the state's electrical-safety code than city inspectors could count in a two-hour examination this week.

Following the inspection, city officials issued 32 specific violations of state building and safety standards to the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, which owns the historic theater.

Of course, the VPAF is crying foul and repeating their claims that Wilder is out to do this project in:

Martin Rust, former president of the Carpenter Center and now a member of the arts foundation board, said Carpenter Center board members were never made aware of "one single building code or safety violation" at the theater.

"Clearly this is harassment by Wilder," Rust said. "Thirty-two violations is amazing. I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish. Are they trying to show it's in good shape or bad shape?"

I think they are proving your ineffectiveness:

"You've got a fire trap at one end of the block and a hole at the other," said Paul Goldman, Wilder's senior policy adviser, referring to the excavation for the new music hall the foundation hopes to build next to the Carpenter Center.

"Obviously the Carpenter Center has been allowed to deteriorate," Goldman said. "It's like, if you don't do it our way, we've set it up so you can't do it any other way."

Another nail in the foundation's coffin.

Just Asking

2005-11-09T16:05:00.000-08:00

Given the propensity of newspapers for being creative (not in a good way) with their headlines, I wonder why we did not wake up to a large picture of a dejected Kilgore on the front page of the T-D with a the huge headline:

KAINED!

Truly a missed opportunity.

You Had to Know, Right?

2005-11-08T17:36:00.000-08:00

Leading Virginia Forward

Guees What? They Don't Like the Mayor's Idea

2005-11-07T23:30:00.000-08:00

What sometimes surprises me is just how predictable all of this is sometimes. The groups that have hooked their stars to the VPAF don't think opening the Carpenter Center quickly is a good idea.

What else were they going to say?

City Council has a mixed reaction, of course. Though, we do hear from a new voice on council:

Councilman Eugene A. Mason Jr. questioned whether the city could legally seize the theater. He suggested the administration meet with council and the arts foundation. Right now, he said, there's a dizzying number of ideas floating about what should be done.

Two things occur to me:

Doug Wilder is brilliantly instictive in how he deals with politics. Secondly is that the VPAF and City Council are hopelessly overmatched against Wilder.

Ever since taking office, Wilder has kept the VPAF and City Council reacting to him. Every time they adjust, or think they have, Mayor Wilder acts in a way they don't expect. Which is starting to bug Manoli Loupassi:

Council President G. Manoli Loupassi said he would prefer for the administration and foundation to work out their differences, and he expressed frustration over having to respond to ideas from Wilder that he hasn't been briefed on.

If he was briefing you on what he was going to do next, then you would be prepared for it. I don't think it has sunk in yet that Mayor Wilder is not interested in working with the council. He's interested in being Mayor Wilder. You might want to adjust your thinking around this Manoli.

Mayor Wilder's announcement that the city is investigating an eminent domain type seizure of the Carpenter Center may or may not be followed with any action toward seizing the center. But it forces the VPAF to respond to it, prepare for it and defend against it. Mayor Wilder has been shaping this debate from the day he stepped into office. How the hell can the performing arts foundation bring their plan together when they are all wrapped up dealing with Doug?

Late Note: It seems that action may well be forthcoming. Well if you can't predict what Doug Wilder will do, you can at least give a guided tour and try to spin things:

Afterward, about 10 representatives of local arts groups led a reporter and a photographer from The Times-Dispatch on a tour of the theater.

"The arts organizations have long had major concerns about the artistic adequacy of this facility and the adequacy for the audiences," said Philip H. Davidson, chairman of the Alliance for the Performing Arts.

I don't believe for one minute that those inspectors were checking for safety violations.

Farrar said the inspectors didn't find a need to close off the building or any of its parts for safety reasons. He described Cooper's visit as a typical inspection.

If you are going to seize a building, it would be good to know how bad the tenants have screwed it up. There certainly will be more to come.

Surprise!

2005-11-03T21:48:00.000-08:00

Doug Wilder isn't going to sit around and wait while the VPAF gets it act together:

Goldman said a so-called "quick take" provision in the city charter would enable the property to be acquired in about a month, although an independent appraisal would have to made first. He said City Council would have to approve funding, and he stressed that Wilder has made no decision to pursue the option.

It's hard to say how hard Mayor Wilder is going to push this, or how hard the VPAF and its cronies will push back. It is fair to say, however, that Doug Wilder is definitely driving the herd.

Ray McAllister--VPAF Skeptic

2005-11-02T22:53:00.000-08:00

It seems Ray has read the latest financial reports from the VPAF, and it did not escape his attention that the VPAF lost ground this month. Now he wants to know the bottom line:

So the question:

Is the Performing Arts Center dead?

Alright, Ray. Let's bring you up to speed.

1. The VPAF does not have a building permit and Doug Wilder isn't going to let them get one as long as he is breathing.

2. The VPAF has dropped plans to get a building permit to raise funds, you know, since they can't get one anyways.

3. Donors are rescinding their gifts.

4. Brad Armstrong has been forced out the door.

5. Mayor Wilder has declared this a "failed endeavor" and vowed that pigs will fly before the VPAF gets any more money from the city.

Now, if you think about all that, and then go read this, I think it is very clear. It's dead. At least as long as this project remains in the hands of the VPAF.

Ray points out that he was a little skeptical last year about proceeding with demolition when the VPAF didn't have all the money it needed to complete the project:

Armstrong had assured the HRF that: "Such demolition does not need to occur until and unless it is abundantly clear that the redevelopment of the Thalhimers block is ready to take place and the funding is available."

Nonetheless, the $93 million Thalhimers-block project is going ahead, with less than $29 million in hand.

What's the deal?

Okay, fair enough. He had questions. A lot of people had questions. But the T-D never bothered to challenge Brad Armstrong when he spouted VPAF happy talk:

Not to worry, Armstrong countered. "We are well on the way, completely confident that that performing arts center is going to get built."

But what if it doesn't?

"It is not a question of if, it is only a question of when," Armstrong insisted.

That was as hard as Armstrong got pushed. Well, it’s not playing out like they though it would. Armstrong is on his way out the door and the financial house of cards is starting to collapse. The more the VPAF is scrutinized, the worse it gets. The foundation continues to spew its long discredited claims of financial health, but even its donors are starting to jump off the stern.

This thing is dead all right.

I highly recommend reading the entire article Ray wrote last year. It is archived at Richmond City Watch, about half way down the page. Reading it, It becomes clear that everything Brad Armstrong was saying at the time was either wishful thinking or pure bullshit.

"If the money is raised later [than anticipated], then I suppose there could be some time when the Thalhimers building is down and we are not yet starting the construction of the performing arts center. I don't think it would look any worse than it does now."

Really?

Armstrong said that even if literally no more money were to be raised, there's already enough to enlarge the existing performing arts center, which everyone agrees is needed and which requires knocking down Thalhimers, anyway. But the whole amount will be raised, he said.

Thank god there were people who didn't accept Armstrong at his word, because this could have been much worse.

This is a good time to mention the piece on Save Richmond at Adaptistration. I know Don and Andrew have mentioned it on their site (twice), but its a nice recap of the excellent work that they done since that fateful meeting in the back of Jim's store. Don, Andrew and Eagle Eyes have done the heavy lifting and due diligence that others should have done. Save Richmond is a stalwart example of the power of a blog and their success in forcing accountability upon the foundation is evidence of the usefulness of blogs in public discourse.

As my Dad used to say: The truth will set you free, but it's going to piss you off first.

2005-11-01T23:46:00.000-08:00

I really do enjoy reading Times-Dispatch articles that have innocuous sounding headlines like:

Arts foundation reports finances

All right then. A routine report about the current state of the VPAF's new commitment to fundraising. But we know better than that, right?

The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation lost a $100,000 pledge in September, a month marked by a city audit of the foundation and the first of two revised plans that failed to win the support of Mayor L. Douglas Wilder.

At least they put the stuff you need to know in paragraph one for a change. For some reason, Judy Ford is doing the talking this time, but she wouldn't explain why the unrestricted pledge was withdrawn. I have a hunch and it rhymes with sinking ship.

It occurred to me that the T-D is so busy trying to appear uninvolved in the story, that they miss some really nice moments of VPAF silliness:

Foundation officials would not comment yesterday on the reports.

Treasurer Beverley W. Armstrong referred questions to President Brad Armstrong, who is on vacation. Chief Operating Officer Michele Walter directed questions to Beverley Armstrong.

What the VPAF does not understand, and the VPAF newsletter, the Times-Dispatch, fails to comment on, is just how ridiculous these moments make the foundation look. They just lost a hundred thousand dollar pledge, and unrestricted private pledges fell by almost 60k in September. So the VPAF stonewalls and plays Call the Other Guy. What might be nice, and could even be construed as a first small step towards accountability and transparency (if they wanted to go that way), would be to say something like:

"You know, September pretty much sucked for us and Doug Wilder handed us our ass. It cost us some money. But we are contacting all the members of the Ukrop family who haven't withdrawn their pledges and redoubling our efforts to get Booty Armstrong to pony up some beer money. Because, you know, we really need to get a drink on."

Or something like that.

Does anybody take these people seriously anymore?

On an unrelated note, it's nice to find out that Don has a sense of humor,but I was referring to his and Sam's steely gaze. What eyebrows?

Blogging Tip: Increase yours hits five-fold by comparing a prominent citizen to a muppet.

See?

2005-10-31T20:15:00.000-08:00

Sam the Eagle

Don the Irresponsible Blogger

Allright. Don has more hair. But it's close.

Fun At The Public Square

2005-10-31T18:12:00.000-08:00

Having done a quick search of a few blogs, I noticed that there hasn't been any mention of the transcripts the Times-Dispatch has up from it first Public Square. I could be wrong about that though.

I haven't read it all yet, but there are some nice moments nestled between a lot of VPAF propaganda. Scott Burger should run for council:

And the fact of the matter is, there’s still some really troubling questions. How much real estate do the Ukrops and the Bryan family own around downtown? How much corporate control Media General has over this whole area? And how much does that play into this debate? We see the pretty spread in the Times-Dispatch about Richmond Renaissance, ideal downtown, with this projects here and-- here and there. But what about the property the buildings that they own are sitting on? We talk about slumlords in this city. Well, let's take a look at that.

I don't mean to be crude. But the fact of the matter is, the full story has to come out. The other topic I wanted to bring up are the cultural questions. Arts-- cultural. What happens when Howard Stern comes and wants to perform at the Performing Arts Center? You know, we jest about Gwar and some other more radical people coming. But honestly, what happens when Bette Midler, as part of her act, is-- is on a cussing, anti-Bush tirade, and the citizens are upset, and she wants to play at the Arts Center? And the city council gets drawn into it, like it did with Marilyn Manson debate?

And Derome Scott Smith should be on the VPAF board:

I took students who had potential, in five years, from nothing, to Scotland to perform, representing the United States of America. I have taught. I'm in the ground level, I'm in the trenches. First, the first student - the first person that I have ever known that was killed was one of my students. The first person that I have ever known personally to go to jail was one of my students. The first person that I have ever seen theater truly change their life was one of my students. This is important for not just for the people who are sitting in this room, but for the people who are not here, who are not represented. Look to your left and look to your right. Diversity is not here. And the potential for diversity is great. Thank you

My two favorite moments in the transcripts came from Sam Forrest and Mark Novick.

SAM FORREST: Oh, Sam Forrest. I thought I said it. Sorry. What else did I do? I've sailed alone across the Atlantic. I've knapsacked around the world. I'm an urban pioneer. I've-- lived in Richmond's ghettos and carried a gun just to get into my house. I feel like I bring some wisdom here.

After reading five pages of transcripts, I could use a drink, and I wouldn't mind sharing the bar with Sam.

Mark Novick probably does the best job of anyone in summing up the problems with the Ukrop's involvement in the performing arts center:

Another thing I learned growing up is, you don't fight with the Ukrop family. I ran for President against Bobby Ukrop at University of Richmond in 1965. I got one vote. Bobby got the rest of the votes. You don't fight with somebody who can buy your city. And Doug Wilder, God bless him, needs to learn that.

But Jim Ukrop has a dream, and it's paid for by the taxpayers!

And I guess that's my dream. Is that together, we might make this project happen. And-- one last thing. In Charlotte, right now, they're trying to raise $150 million to add to their cultural arts downtown capital projects. And the-- and the way they're gonna raise $80 million of that is raise the rental car tax 4 percent. So, all around the country, there are public dollars going into these performing arts centers. And I think we should be doing that here in Richmond. Together with the private sector. Thank you.

You had to know that I was going to give Don the last word:

I'm Don Harrison. I'm with SaveRichmond.com. And actually, someone asked, I believe on the other side tonight, wh-- why isn't this center being built? The center isn't being built because of a lack of private funds. The Performing Arts Foundation were supposed to-- come up with a certain amount of private funds. And it hasn't materialized. I don't think we can blame Mayor Wilder, for being accountable for public money that is being spent on a project. I-- I don't think that we need to call him someone who doesn't like the performing arts.

This project has never been independently studied. Never been independently studied. It's a hundred million dollar project. It's failed in its fundraising. It had to go back to City Council-- the Foundation did, in order to have the fundraising deadline extended. This, despite telling everyone that these fundraising deadlines held feet to the fire. Okay? So, this isn't just a matter of supporting the arts or not supporting the arts. I would gladly give tax money to a worthy arts project, myself. I would. But this isn't that plan.

We need a new plan, is what we need. For the big hall. And-- I don't think that the question with the arts groups should be, "How do we keep propping up this bad plan at any cost?" I think the question for all of us is, "Don't we deserve better?" Thank you.

So what did we learn?

1. Everybody feels better after a good talk.

2. Arts Organizations need places to perform.

3. Children love the arts but just don't know it because they haven't seen any arts.

4. Tom Silvestri looks a lot like Stephen Hawking.

5. Don Harrison looks a little bit like Sam the Eagle from the The Muppet Show.

Well, I guess it's a good thing they got everybody together.

I Was Wrong

2005-10-31T14:32:00.000-08:00

In a recent post I was incredulous that the Times Dispatch failed to mention that City Council passed a proposed ordinance adding additional oversight to the VPAF fundraising extension and tabled a related ordinance from Bill Pantele. Well, as Snoopy pointed out, I was mistaken.

For the record, I did not get my information from the minutes of the council meeting, as they were not available when I wrote the post. Rather, I ran a search using the tool for Ordinances and Resolutions found here. I searched Ordinance 2005-247 listed on the Council Agenda for the 24th of October. That document is here. I ran the search about 2 o'clock in the morning Tuesday, October 25th. At the time I ran the search, the search return indicated that the resolution had passed.

I ran the search again a few minutes ago and that same search returns a resolution of stricken. I apologize for the error. I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy.

Loupassi Getting Unwanted Public Exposure

2005-10-27T22:48:00.000-07:00

Manoli can't catch a break it seems and he is getting a lot of flak for representing a guy caught allegedly flagellating himself in public. In this instance though, my sympathies are with Manoli. He is a defense lawyer after all, and it's his job to defend the interests of shady degenerates and miscreants. You know, just like he does for the VPAF. He scored points with me by shrugging off the complaints of his constituents and showing a little backbone.

Pulling out of the case would be unethical, Loupassi said.

"Your duty is to your client, regardless of how it affects you politically," he said.

However, I find it ironic that at the center of all the complaints is the allegation that representing this client creates a conflict of interest. No, Manoli would never put himself in that position.

Build on Your Strengths

2005-10-26T19:20:00.000-07:00

Some of my friends are, or have been, adjunct faculty at VCU. So I was aware that the art department was of very high caliber and I did know that the VCU art program was highly regarded nationally. One can learn this for themselves by checking out the student work that is sprinkled around downtown on First Fridays. What I did not know, however was VCU's Sculpture + Extended Media program is the top ranked program in the country.

According to U.S. News & World Report’s most recent ranking of art schools in 2003, VCU’s sculpture program is No. 1. (Fine arts programs aren’t ranked annually.) VCU beats Yale and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, which ranked two and three, and nine other master of fine arts in sculpture programs.

It is an interesting piece and further evidence that the creative class is thriving in Richmond, even though most people aren't paying attention. It occurred to me that we have an amazing asset like this in the city and you don't hear about it, let alone see the work. The recent Artspace 2005 Sculpture Invitational was a step in the right direction. But the city could get a lot more serious about promoting the arts and creating a reputation for itself by promoting this jewel of an art school.

All year there have been press reports and news conferences about the yet to be built performing arts center on Broad Street. Everyone--Mayor Wilder, Jim Ukrop, Bill Pantele, Manoli Loupassi--everyone says how important supporting and promoting the arts is and what a positive affect it can have on the future development of the community.

Well, there is a gift horse grazing in our front yard. Not too long ago there brightly colored fish all over the sidewalks of Richmond. But most accounts it was a pretty successful venture all the way around. The city was transformed for a while. I still see some of those fish around town, years later. If you take the sculpture invitational and merge it a public art project like "Go Fish!," you get where I am going with this.

Having sculpture displayed around Richmond by students in the best sculpture school in the country is no small thing. You can bet that some of these people are going to become big deals. Not Richmond-class big deals, but international-type big deals. Having work of that caliber be part of the city landscape is no small thing.

Obviously, I am throwing off the top of my head with this. The point is if Richmond wants to really become a first-class city, it can. There are great things about living in Richmond. But we need to take step back and see what we have to work with. Big projects won't make the city a good place to live. Making it livable will. Joe Essid is right. Think small.

Interesting

2005-10-25T23:15:00.000-07:00

Bill Pantele's proposed ordinance to continue funneling meal tax money to the VPAF was tabled Monday, while Martin Jewell's ordinance adding some teeth to the fundraising extension was adopted. While the Times-Dispatch couldn't wait to let us know about the mayor's letter to Governor Warner, it seems this development wasn't worth mentioning. I think it might be key down the line.

Besides changing the definitions of what can be reported as real money from "binding commitments" to "cash or investments", it requires the transfer of real property assets of the foundation back to the city if they don't meet the new fundraising deadline. So the city could get their hole back.

In adopting Jewell's ordinance and passing on Pantele's, it does seem that the council has taken a step towards assuming its proper role as stewards of public interest. Sort of. The council also voted to exempt the Carpenter Center from real and personal property taxes backdated to 2003 contingent upon continued use by the VPAF.

So the VPAF has to more stringently report its finances to the city, and it could lose its hole on Broad Street if they fail to meet their fundraising requirements. But they don't have to pay any taxes on the Carpenter Center.

Are we making progress?

It's the letter to the Governor that is really interesting. Mayor Wilder proposes taking some of the state money and using to alleviate the heating crisis that is coming this winter. Kevin Hall, the governor’s press secretary, points out that it is a moot point:

But, he said, "the governor cannot unilaterally withhold money the legislature has already appropriated, and winter will have come and gone by the time the General Assembly could act on this request."

True enough, but Doug Wilder knew that, right? He was the governor and might have some inkling about the workings of state government. Then why send the letter? I suspect that Mayor Wilder is throwing a change-up pitch. By taking the issue of meal tax money for the performing arts center and pointing out uses for that money that address very real problems the city is facing, Doug Wilder is making it very hard for Jim Ukrop to publicly argue for that money, now or later on. But Norm figured that out a while ago.

Hey Bill, Take the Two Million and Buy a Clue

2005-10-24T23:13:00.000-07:00

I was in New York for the weekend and somewhere in the midst of preparing for the trip, I got married. So I haven't exactly been on top of things. But after a really great and incredibly full weekend, I was heartened to learn that City Council meeting would be happening Monday night and I would have some fun to come home to. It turns out that Bill Pantele was geared up to insure the poor would not go unheated this winter and simultaneously insure that the VPAF would keep the hole on Broad Street. Funny how those two things fit so neatly together. He's right too, you know. I mean the money is just sitting there, so why not take it?

Of course, the Mayor has other ideas.

The mayor said his proposal would generate $2.6 million a year and added that Pantele's proposal would force the city to give up a valuable piece of downtown property.

The Mayor also called Pantele out on his obvious conflict of interest by sitting on the VPAF's executive committee.

"I don't think anything like this would happen anyplace but Richmond," Wilder said, "that a member of a private board would use his political position to suggest that the city . . . benefit that private board."

Bill Pantele doesn't see it that way at all.

Pantele said it is routine for council members to sit on boards, to act as the public's eyes and ears, and dismissed the mayor's suggestion he has a conflict of interest.

Well, I might agree with that if he were acting as the public's eyes and ears. But the council voted themselves two seats when they voted the fundraising extension in order as an act of defiance of the Mayor. Since then, council members have been killing themselves to see who can do more to advance the cause of the foundation.

Elected representatives cannot safeguard the public's interest while advocating for a quasi-private organization that receives, or used to receive, public monies. It is a conflict.

Though I have been harping on this building permit thing, I have overlooked something recently. The foundation tried to give the city two million to secure the land on Broad Street. The Times-Dispatch mentioned again that the board did this in case they don't get a building permit.

Foundation officials say the group already owns the Thalhimers block. They say the $2 million is meant to keep the city from demanding the return of the land if they are unable to obtain a building permit within three years.

Three years? Could it be that Eagle Eyes was right? Of course he was.

Apples and Orange County

2005-10-24T20:08:00.000-07:00

Over at River City Rapids, Snoopy has a post about Denver's Performing Arts Complex. I still feel it is not fair, or relevant, to compare the arts center of a major population center like Orange County, California (population 3,056,865) or even to Denver, Colorado (population 554,636). The population of Greater Richmond, which includes the City of Richmond, Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico counties, has just over a million people. But as we know, it is hardly a cohesive region. If Henrico, Chesterfield and Richmond were working together on an arts center, we might be able to put together projects like Orange County or Denver has. However, that kind of regional cooperation is beyond us right now.

I made the point in an earlier post that Orange County, offered by the Times-Dispatch editors as an example of a successful suburban arts center, is a text-book example of how to do one these projects. Denver looks like an excellent case-study as well. There are strong similarities between how these cities developed their performing arts centers, and the histories of both centers make the VPAF look like the ill-organized bunch of hacks they have proven themselves to be.

Read both histories though. They offer a vision of what could be possible; something the VPAF can't wrap their heads around.

Shortpump Can Have Them

2005-10-13T22:27:00.000-07:00

The more I think about it, the Times-Dispatch is probably right. These bastards should go to Shortpump.

I figured after yesterdays annoncement, things might quiet down. Not likely. Hell, even Manoli Loupassi drug himself out of whatever hole he has been in:

"What is his plan?" City Council President G. Manoli Loupassi. asked of Wilder. "Are we going to lose the symphony? The performing-arts groups in town, what are they going to do?"

You could answer the same question pally. Have you got a plan to get the Carpenter Center reopened before we all die? Just in case you were wondering Manoli, this is what a plan looks like.

The way I figure it now, the VPAF and Henrico County are made for each other. So go already.

Cripes.

What the Hell is the Times-Dispatch Talking about?

2005-10-13T19:42:00.000-07:00

As Norm noted, it did not take long for the Times-Dispatch to weigh in on yesterday's developments. In a three point editorial, the TD argues that Shortpump is now the business hub of the Richmond metropolitan area and that despite the millions being poured into downtown developments, downtown Richmond is dead. Not only that, it turns out art centers have a mixed track record when it comes to economic development. The editors seem to think that Richmond would do well to move the arts center to the suburbs. Hell, it worked in Orange County, California!

After four years of trumpeting the performing arts center as the key to bringing downtown back, the T-D now seems to think it a waste of time to build the center in downtown, since downtown "continues to languish."

Meanwhile, despite gratifying progress linked to the riverfront and in areas associated with VCU, MCV, and the Biotech Park, commercial activity along the city's downtown corridor continues to languish. The 6th Street Marketplace was intended to boost the department stores, which many identified with Richmond's style and soul. The stores closed anyway. The Marketplace subsequently collapsed. Richmond is far from unique: Flagships from the golden age of department stores have abandoned too many downtowns to name. To be more accurate, the stores usually have left because their customers already had abandoned the city cores.

This editorial is stupefyingly wrong-headed in its assumptions and its conclusions. Downtown revitalization takes years. A lot of things have to go right over time for a city to reinvent itself and to make a downtown livable again. But it can be done, and has been done very recently about a hundred miles from here. Norfolk's example illustrates very clearly that no single project will get you there, but a series of projects that ultimately complement each other will get you to a point of critical mass. Then people will be beating down your door to live and work there. That's what is happening in Norfolk.

The development slated for downtown Richmond actually is quite impressive and encouraging, even if you factor out the performing arts center. The Dispatch's earlier optimism about downtown was not misplaced. The collapse of an ill-conceived and under funded project does not mean the end of Richmond's rebirth; it means that the VPAF may not be part of it. Fair enough. Moving the arts center somewhere else may even have some merit. But the idea that Shortpump has become a center of commerce is laughable. Shopping centers, movie theatres and business parks do not a center of commerce make. Shortpump has become a retail hub, but that by itself doesn't mean much if you seriously consider relocating the arts center.

This brings us to the really dumb part of this editorial. To bolster their argument that the performing arts center could thrive in the suburbs, the editors offer us the example of Orange County, California. For the moment, we shall ignore the fact that Orange County is a large county in densely populated Southern California and has a professional baseball team to compliment its thriving arts center. We can also ignore the fact that with the county there is more that one city with a downtown business district. We won't consider that Orange County has a population three times that of Greater Richmond, which includes the City of Richmond, Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico counties. Even if you include the metropolitan statistical areas, Orange County's population dwarfs ours.

But what cannot be ignored is the striking dissimilarity between the two regions when considering how they went about developing their proposed centers. In fact, in paragraph one of the Orange County Performing Arts Center's history, we learn that one of the very first things the Newport Harbor Foundation did was--get this-- a feasibility study. The history is quite instructive and is probably the most damming evidence of the VPAF's incompetence.

The Segerstrom family was impressed by the financial integrity of the project group, which had already raised a significant amount of money for the cause through an elaborate network of Support Groups. The family had already determined that the arts would play an integral role in helping the community establish its cultural identity. They recognized that there was sufficient public support for the performing arts in Orange County to sustain a cultural institution entirely through private funding. They were certain that such an institution would serve as catalyst for the growth and development for the county’s regional arts organizations.

Feasibility studies? Fundraising? Private funding? But there's more:

Shortly thereafter, the site was evaluated, market research studies were conducted and fundraising strategies were explored

When all the studies were completed and the results deemed positive, the Board of Directors chose the architectural firm, The Blurock Partnership of Newport Beach, California, working in conjunction with Caudill Rowlett Scott of Houston, Texas, to consult on and design the project.

They actually waited to start hiring until after all the studies were completed, they had acquired the land and were raising the money to build the thing. Well, I guess that's one way to do it. It is also worth noting that it only took 17 years after that first feasibility study to put their arts center together.

Regardless of whether the VPAF moves its project to Shortpump or stays in Richmond, the Times-Dispatch has unwittingly made the case against the proposed performing arts center and the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation.

VPAF Falls Back and Armstrong Takes One for the Team

2005-10-12T19:02:00.000-07:00

Saying it has been unable to resolve six months of disagreement with Mayor L. Douglas Wilder, the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation today announced a new plan for a downtown arts center.

If this were any other group, one could make the case that today’s announcement was a recognition of the sea change we have seen since Doug Wilder took office and an adjustment to reality. But we are talking about the VPAF and what I would call an alignment with harsh political realities they call a new plan.

Over the course of the summer, these things have happened to the VPAF:

1. They lost their building permit.

2. Mayor Wilder has withheld funds and declared that no more city funds will be released.

3. The Mayor has demanded that the VPAF revise its plans to a Carpenter Center only project.

4. The city has indicated it may try to seize the Thalhimers site.

Coincidentally, along with today's "new plan", the VPAF has indicated that it will:

1. Not pursue a building permit while it raises money.

2. Not pursue additional money from the city, which the VPAF still believes they should get.

3. Focus its efforts on renovating the Carpenter Center.

4. Attempt to hang on to the Thalhimers site.

So if you ignore everything they say and look at their actions, which a wise man once said never lie, then it is evident that the VPAF is dancing to the Mayor's tune.

Having said that, I must admit that I a little confused by the latest developments. Nor am I the only one who is scratching their head. Brad Armstrong's resignation was inevitable and it does seem that all the VPAF has done is fall in line with the Mayor's demands. But given the foundation's continued passive aggressive defiance of Doug Wilder and their significant credibility problem, I wonder if there is a future for the foundation.

If the VPAF does stay alive, there is one other thing to consider. With Brad Armstrong gone, Jim Ukrop is now on point for the foundation. Even with city funds off the table, I suspect things might intensify. Brad Armstrong served as something of a buffer between Ukrop and Wilder and I think that personal animosity between them has been a huge factor in all of this.

Right after the Mayor met with Ukrop and his crew, he said "It took a long time for them to get where they are now." Today he called the announcement "a clear indication that the people who used to run Richmond don't run it anymore."

You tell me who he's talking about, if not Jim Ukrop

Will They Sue Doug or Fire Brad?

2005-10-11T22:48:00.000-07:00

For a group that seems to revile scrutiny, the VPAF does seem bent on a course of action that will bring them a great deal of it. Doug Wilder couldn't be happier:

Wilder said he doesn't intend to initiate a court fight against the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and hasn't been told that one is forthcoming. He added, "It would be a great time to be able to depose some witnesses, to ask some people about a whole lot of things that went on."

If the VPAF does file suit, things could get very weird. What would be weirder still in the VPAF without Brad Armstrong to kick around anymore. It's hard to say what will the VPAF will announce tomorrow, but I suspect they won't be talking about where all that money came from:

The foundation has scheduled a news conference for 10 a.m. today following a meeting of its board of directors. Early yesterday, spokeswoman Carolyn Cuthrell would not discuss any potential details and said she was unable to answer questions about how the foundation was able to cover the check for $2 million. The foundation recently reported having had a cash balance of $1.6 million as of Aug. 31.

There is one thing that I do know; if I want to find out tomorrow what transpires at that news conference, I will have to go here.

A Historic Development

2005-10-11T22:43:00.000-07:00

The Patteson-Schutte House appears to have been spared demolition, according to the Times-Dispatch:

About a week ago, Nolde and the Historic Richmond Foundation agreed to a deal in which the organization would purchase the house and some surrounding property at a discounted price. Nolde has agreed to redraw development plans to allow the house to stay in its current location.

This would have seemed to be a no-brainer, considering the historic signifigance of the property and the fact that so few homes from the 18th century remain in Richmond. But it seems that the house was genuinely in danger of being torn down until the Historic Richmond Foundation closed a deal with John Nolde.

Three lots aren't too high of price to pay for doing the right thing.

Why is Brad Surprised?

2005-10-11T22:37:00.000-07:00

After remaining in the background for several weeks, Brad Armstrong reasserts himself into the VPAF debacle by expressing surprise that the city, at Doug Wilder's direction, rejected its 2 million dollar check to purchase the Thalhimers property. "I'm surprised it would not be welcomed," he said.

Well I don't believe for a minute that he is surprised. The Mayor has repeatedly referred to this as a failed venture, refused to release additional funds, openly questioned the continued relevance of the previous city ordinance and all but called Jim Ukrop out into the street. That doesn't even take into account the pummeling the Mayor gave the Brad and the VPAF right after they failed to include him in the distribution for the city auditor's report on VPAF financing.

So, why is Brad surprised?

To their credit, even the Times-Dispatch noticed that the VPAF was suddenly flush with cash:

The foundation's ability to even write a check for $2 million is noteworthy. In the four monthly financial statements released to the city since late June, the foundation has reported cash balances ranging from $1.1 million to $1.6 million.

Armstrong said the foundation has not received any gifts or had any pledges fulfilled with the specific purpose of paying the city the $2 million. He said the foundation had more than $3 million in the bank yesterday, including the $2 million offered to the city.

This means that the VPAF bank balances doubled seemingly overnight.

"It's just the typical rise and fall of our cash statements as pledges are made," he said.

It probably is just good fortune that one of those rises occurred right before trying to buy the land that they absolutely must have in order to keep this doomed little experiment in civic pride afloat a little longer.

Machinations for Naught

2005-10-11T21:09:00.000-07:00

The blog has been on the back-burner as I prepare for a trip to New York City and deal with the city's dysfunctional building inspection system, though I can always make time for Brad Armstrong's antics.

However, I really want to discuss Andrew's theory on yesterdays move by the VPAF to buy the Thalhimers site. He thinks it creates an opportunity to ease Brad out the door and to eventually tie up the property:

If it’s (2), and it sure seems to be, then we’re left with an unpleasant scenario–the executive board has come up with a way to show Brad the door (possibly with his consent), buy the land (by suing once the city rejects the check) and make an eventual music hall too expensive NOT to build. It could do this by doing something called “pouring the footings,” setting up the moorings for the concrete walls, if I understand correctly. Once done, it’s expensive as hell to undo. Hello Ukrop Symphony Hall, inaugural season 2014.

I sent Andrew an email on this and argued that this scenario is an unlikely one as it would call for the VPAF to have a building permit in its possession. This won’t happen, even if Mick Jagger did mention Midlothian at Scott Stadium.

Upon reflection, there are other problems with the hypothesis. First it would require the VPAF to have actually developed a plan, one which they would have to implement. Not only that, the plan would have to work, which means winning the lawsuit. But trust me; they haven’t thought this through any more thoroughly than they have anything else.

Regardless of any moves the VPAF might try to make from here on out, I think there is only one thing that matters:

They still don't have a building permit.

Andrew may be absolutely right that the board is angling for a lawsuit, one that might force the city to sell them the land for 2 million. But that raises other questions, questions that a newspaper journalist might actually consider asking:

Regarding building permits, can the city deny a building permit on the basis of financial capacity?

Can the city be forced to issue a building permit?

What other factors can be considered in determining the merits of building permit for any large scale development project?

As things stands now, nothing is going to happen without that permit. They can raise all the money they want, fire Brad Armstrong, and parade a thousand children in front of city council with placards reading "We need the arts. Do it for us." Whatever.

If I were David Ress or Will Jones, I would be researching the building permit stuff. You know, if they wanted to do some actual reporting.

RVA Blogs

2005-10-04T23:22:00.000-07:00

RVA Blogs is a pretty cool idea; one stop shoppin for all the blogs about Richmond, Virginia. A good idea with a sharp new look.

Dead in the Water

2005-10-04T22:10:00.000-07:00

Eagle Eyes at Save Richmond called it first. The VPAF can't move forward with any version of the arts center as it doesn't have the money. That has been an open secret for some time now, and Carolyn Cuthrell's announcement that the VPAF will concentrate on fundraising only underscores the obvious.

My own hunch is that the pesky little matter of a building permit has done them in. Without a permit they cannot move forward and I can't imagine anyone working in Doug Wilder's City Hall issuing a permit unless the Mayor signed off on it. That would mean that the VPAF would have to demonstrate the capacity to build the thing, and there are all sorts of other things the Mayor has called for that would have to happen before he would green light the project.

Which brings us to an interesting point regarding this announcement, one that Manoli Loupassi neatly summed it up a few days ago:

"The bottom line is, I could give them until 2020 [to raise money], but as long as Wilder is there and against them, who's going to give them money?"

So, the VPAF will concentrate on fundraising, which they admit is going to be nearly impossible in the face of Doug Wilder's opposition. That means Brad Armstrong, Jim Ukrop and the entire VPAF are going to be left twisting in the wind.

I have been reflecting how this weird saga has played out over the last several months, and how a project everyone seemed to agree was a good thing for the city became such a public spectacle. I have a theory.

What we have been witnessing for several months is basically a pissing contest between Doug Wilder and Jim Ukrop. Not long after the luminous Gang of Four met with the Mayor, the city auditor released its report to the VPAF. The VPAF then released the report to everyone except the Mayor. That struck me as being a really dumb move, until I considered the possibility that it was deliberate. But that didn't make sense since everyone was making noises about how productive that meeting was; unless it wasn't that productive. Mayor Wilder comes out of the meeting completely non-committal and the next move the VPAF makes is to release the audit to all but the Mayor, who responds by verbally smacking the VPAF around the ears.

Yesterday the VPAF said it will concentrate on fundraising that can't be successful with Doug Wilder's support, which I think one could assume will not be forthcoming. How did we get here?

"He might own some other people. He might bully some other people," Wilder said. "But I owe my election, I owe my strength and always have owed it -- to the people. And he doesn't own, nor will he own or buy me."

The Performing Arts Center as envisioned by the VPAF died that day. They are only now figuring that out.

The only thing that could possibly revive this thing is a very public restructuring of the entire foundation. But as I said before, they don't have the will to do it. But a purge must happen and I agree completely with Andrew. Brad Armstrong's head is first on the block.

What the Hell is Manoli Loupassi Talking About?

2005-09-28T23:11:00.000-07:00

There is a longer post coming on the latest Times-Dispatch article on the VPAF road show, but for now let us examine this beauty of a paragraph:

City Council President G. Manoli Loupassi said council members must rely on the administration for information, including the quality of the foundation's reimbursement requests. Loupassi also said Wilder should be the one to propose an ordinance for the arts center.

I remember reading something the Council wrote not too long ago that sounded like they were feeling all empowered and stuff (still looking for the link). Now he is saying they are dependent upon the administration for information? Is this the same council that has two members on the VPAF board, has been reading the audit report for five days before the Mayor even got a copy, and decided that the Mayor was really making to big a deal about all this financial stuff and gave the VPAF a fundraising extension over the concerns of that same Mayor?

He has got to be kidding. Now Manoli does have a good point about one thing:

"The bottom line is, I could give them until 2020 [to raise money], but as long as Wilder is there and against them, who's going to give them money?"

What he doesn’t address is how city council and the VPAF have colluded to work around the Mayor, which has only intensified the Mayor’s objections. They really don’t get it.

I wonder how Andrew is coming with that recall petition.

Our Obstructionist Mayor

2005-09-28T21:10:00.000-07:00

Watching Mayor Wilder work is really fun.

Just as folks think they have gotten themselves lined up with the Mayor, he moves the line. So Jim Ukrop thought his meeting with the Mayor might be getting the VPAF somewhere? Not really:

Wilder says he'll authorize no more money until a new ordinance is passed. But, he isn't making any recommendations just yet. He says the foundation should be in the budget like any other city spending and notes that as mayor, he controls the city's spending.

The Mayor now holds the position that the audit shows the VPAF out of compliance with the ordinance city council passed authorizing a fundraising extension. So a new ordinance has to be passed, but he wants the money for the foundation to be part of the city budget.

A new line.

All roads lead to Doug.

UDPATE: Apparently somebody told the Dispatch about the news conference and they finally got something up on their site. But they do have further evidence that the VPAF has not one single clue into the personality of Doug Wilder or that he is taking this whole Mayor thing very seriously:

He bristled at the foundation's response to the audit. In a statement Tuesday, finance Chairman Beverley W. Armstrong said he was pleased the auditors found 94 percent of the reimbursement requests were appropriate.

"When you find a group that makes light of the fact that 'Hey, well, we're 94 percent in compliance' -- that isn't good enough for me," Wilder said. "Not a single dime should be wasted."

Armstrong declined to comment yesterday.

I guess so . You weren't really striking the right tone there, Booty. You might want to take a cue from Brad and lay low for a while.

There's much more good stuff in here.

Advantage Wilder

2005-09-28T17:48:00.000-07:00

Style is reporting new grumblings of dissent from with the VPAF board. We even have one of the directors anonymously calling for Brad Armstrong's resignation. Whatever. It's water under the bridge. In case the Jim and Brad haven't noticed, the Mayor does not suffer fools or face slaps lightly. Brad Armstrong could commit Hari Kari at the next council meeting and I imagine it would matter not one whit.

Just this afternoon the Mayor repeated himself again, right after announcing that he didn't get a copy of the VPAF audit. No more money.

Brad Armstrong should resign and must resign if the VPAF hopes to salvage anything at this point. At best, they might salvage a civil working relationship with the city. But I am taking the Mayor at his word. As long as he walks the corridors of City Hall, the VPAF will get no more money from the city.

This crew does not have the game to deal with the wreckage they have created. Match point, advantage Wilder.

Man, Was That Dumb

2005-09-28T17:42:00.000-07:00

I think it is fair to say that things are no longer quiet in regards to the arts center. Or anything else for that matter. All sorts of news and comment-worthy things have fallen from the tree in the last twenty-four hours.

It seems that the Mayor held a press conference today, although I have not been able to find any transcripts or news releases pertaining to it. Could somebody please explain to the Times-Dispatch exactly how this internet web thingy works? The report I caught was the local news slot on WVEC, so I am working from memory.

It should comes as no surprise that Mayor basically reiterated his pledge to withhold further funding of "that damn hole in the ground on Broad Street." But what is a surprise is colossal stupidity of the VPAF Board of Directors. Maybe not such a surprise, but when you consider that the Gang of Four just had a sit down with the Mayor, ostensibly to try and move beyond the current impasse, what the VPAF did this week sets a new benchmark for self-defeatism.

It seems that after receiving the much anticipated report from the city auditor, the VPAF provided copies to City Council, the Times-Dispatch, and apparently anyone else in Richmond who can read. However, they forgot the Mayor’s office, according to Bill Farrar. Now, get this:

The report was released to City Council on Thursday, and is scheduled to be released to the public tomorrow. The Times-Dispatch obtained a copy this week.

Are they high?

Some member's of the VPAF board are getting a clue that if they don't have Doug, there is no arts center. Or even a renovated Carpenter Center. So this rather significant slight is either intentional or further evidence that the VPAF cannot be trusted with public interests. Hell, they cannot even act in behalf of their own.

It seems obvious that if one wants to mend fences with the Mayor, and maybe even get this train wreck set back on the tracks, then what one does is give the Mayor a copy first, before anyone outside the VPAF sees it. Maybe one even requests a meeting at that time and says that this report won't be released until after one meets with the Mayor. But give it to the man first.

That would be the smart play. But then the VPAF has yet to make one since the new Mayor came to town.

Pretty Soon Your Talking Real Money

2005-09-27T23:38:00.000-07:00

Other matters have demanded my attention for several days now, though I have been staying abreast of developments with the VPAF. Andrew has the rundown on the sordid little backroom shenanigans going on that appear designed to circumvent our obstructionist Mayor. Now I am not a political science major, or am I an ethicist, but I can tell you that all sorts of red flags are raised in my mind when you take a publicly elected official, place him on the board of a quasi-private arts organization and then name him to an organization that distributes funds to arts organizations.

Can you say conflict of interest?

Obviously Bill Pantele didn't get the Mayor's memo about the old days being over.

But none of that really matters since the city auditor released its review of VPAF finances, exonerating the foundation of any mishandling of city money. Sort of.

I have a pretty good idea of how the VPAF is going to spin this, but we can disabuse them of their delusions of fiscal responsibility as they spout them. However, there is one really mind-blowing piece of information in the piece. It is almost unbelievable, and since it falls under the category of stuff you need to know, it is buried at the end of piece. It is the last paragraph that has the grabber:

Reviewing the monthly financial reports, the auditors focused in part on the conditions that attached too many of the foundation's pledges.

The auditors concluded that the foundation's figure for "pledges raised to date" does not satisfy a requirement that it report its "binding commitments and approvals."

The auditors said pledges with conditions cannot be considered binding because the conditions may not be met. They said the foundation disagreed and insisted a written pledge could be considered binding, regardless of conditions.

As of June 30, conditional or restricted pledges totaled $51.5 million and unconditional pledges totaled $17.7 million, according to the auditor's report.

I am not a petty guy. I can overlook the 687K that was improperly expensed, particularly in view of all the children the VPAF is going to help. But the difference between unconditional pledges and conditional pledges is a little hard to overlook. Of course, the foundation doesn't see a difference.

As of today, the VPAF has 17 million dollars pledged without any strings or conditions. Now, I am not a math major, but if you take 17 million and add that to the million (give or take) the VPAF has in the bank, then it looks like they might a little light. But then I don't have the VPAF's ingrained optimism.

Self Inflicted

2005-09-20T22:25:00.000-07:00

The good news is that Richmond will be hosting the National Folk Festival for the next three years. The bad news is that Citycelebrations appears poised to make the Henrico County Board of Supervisors look like planning geniuses. Not that people will be getting trampled or anything. I mean, it’s a folk festival we are talking about. But a real opportunity might be squandered. The particulars are provided over at River City Rapids.

This is a real shame but because there are some great things about Richmond and this could be an incredible city. Despite real changes that you might have read about, Richmond seems determined to remain a bush league town.

We can do better and we deserve better. But as William Munny said to Little Bill the in The Unforgiven, “Deserve's got nothin' to do with it. ”

Capitulation?

2005-09-15T22:55:00.000-07:00

The Gang of Four met with Mayor Wilder yesterday and all involved deemed it "productive."

Ukrop and fellow directors Beverley W. "Booty" Armstrong, John W. Bates III and John Sherman Jr. didn't win Wilder's blessing at the meeting, though they said that wasn't their expectation. Ukrop, Armstrong and Sherman lead large financial businesses in the city, while Bates is considered one of the most influential lawyers in Richmond.

It appears the foundation thinks it has a plan. After announcing their "new" strategy and emasculating Brad Armstrong's salary, the VPAF finally gave the Times-Dispatch what they have been pining for; a meeting of the principals. If the foundation can get the Mayor to sign off on phased implementation and get his public support, they might actually be able to move forward. Which is no sure thing.

But the meeting its significant, if for no other reason than it affirms that if one wants to do business with the City, all roads lead to Doug:

"It took a long time for them to get where they are now," Wilder said.

It sure is fun watching Doug Wilder work.

Too Little Too Late

2005-09-14T22:53:00.000-07:00

Much will be made of Brad Armstrong's decision to take a 100K pay cut and it will be pointed to as a sure sign that the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation is serious about getting this project completed. It already is judging by this sub-headline:

After hearing criticism that his salary was too high, Armstrong volunteers to reduce it $100,000

A more accurate reading would be:

After repeatedly defending and justifying his salary after months of criticism Armstrong volunteers to reduce it $100,000

I digress.

His decision might even be cited as evidence that the foundation is being responsive to the criticisms being levied at it. Cue Ross, Clarke, Mark, ET all. The simple truth is that it is an empty and self-serving gesture. If you make almost 300,000.00 dollars a year, you can afford to take a 36 percent pay cut.

In his letter, Armstrong reiterated that "not a penny" of his salary is paid with public money and he referred to a report by the foundation's compensation committee that his salary "has been and is within an appropriate range for the job at hand."

"I am, however, convinced that this issue will continue to be a lightening [sic] rod, and may negatively affect our path to successfully completing our work"

Yet the fact remains that the five points presented by the foundation yesterday are little more than a regurgitation of its original plan. Something, by the way, the Mayor refers to as a "failed venture." More on that in a minute.

Remember that salary survey the VPAF announced in June? Well, the results are in and it seems that Armstrong's new salary is on the low end.

The memo does not identify the centers, and it looks at compensation in several ways. One comparison focused on eight arts centers that are either under development or have major expansions planned. The memo said the top executives received between $175,000 and $338,000, with the average falling at $256,700.

Fair enough. As empty gestures go, that's pretty good. Now Carolyn Cuthrell can say in all seriousness that he is only making 175,000 dollars and year and everyone else doing a similar job is making way more than that. She can also claim he believes in the VPAF vision so completely that he made this sacrifice. Whatever.

The VPAF has to realize that if there is to be any sort of arts center on Broad Street, they are going to have to rework its relationship with the city. This means that they are going to have to deal with Doug. Therein lays the rub:

Wilder had no comment. In a statement released by his office, he said he was focusing on issues other than the arts center.

"I learned from news accounts that the [foundation] has taken certain actions," he said. "Upon receiving from them the factual accounting of just what that has been, I will respond as the need requires."

He doesn't sound impressed. This brings us back to that little matter of the Mayor seeing this as a “failed venture”. As it stands, the VPAF is going to be hard pressed to demonstrate the resources to just renovate the Carpenter Center; they don't have a building permit and they face, as Clarke Bustard puts it, an "obstructionist" Mayor. But hey, did we mention that Brad Armstrong took a 100,000.00 pay cut?

VPAF Follies

2005-09-14T22:43:00.000-07:00

Over at Save Richmond, Eagle Eyes has a pretty solid theory about the vaguely presented recalcitrance of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation’s board of directors and why they won't scale back the project.

They can't.

There is a run down of the numbers and it sounds right. Yet, even if EE's theory is correct, the board could still cling to their overblown concept and strike a more conciliatory tone regarding the past debacle. It would be difficult and would never fly, but it is possible.

I also agree that the VPAF blew a real opportunity to turn things around yesterday. If they were serious about salvaging the project and its relationship with the city, the board could have made its case yesterday. They could have but didn't.

A few years ago I read a great book called the March of Folly. There were several examples of governments that pursued doomed policies that worked against self-interest. The Vietnam War was one example. Well, the VPAF is suffering from this same mindset. There is ample evidence and opinion that the current course the board has set for itself will take it straight over the falls. There are a lot of really smart, talented people sitting on the board, including the council members, and yet they seem utterly incapable of acting in their own self-interest at this point. For whatever reason, they can't.

VPAF Receive Broadcast From Mothership

2005-09-13T23:07:00.000-07:00

If the VPAF's five point statement is indeed a response to the Mayor's wishes, then the response is "Did you say something?"

The board has decided to forge ahead without really conceding anything. It is almost as if the last three or four months haven't happened. There is one small concession to reality, however:

The site would be landscaped temporarily if there is a delay in starting construction on Broad Street.

That certainly should alleviate the Mayor's concern about the "damn hole in the ground on Broad Street".

Don's reaction to this is pretty similar to mine. If you strip away the rhetoric, there is nothing new here. What I find confounding is how the VPAF believes that their statement changes anything.

Foundation directors said they felt they made a significant move toward Mayor L. Douglas Wilder's position that their plans are too ambitious.

They probably believe that. But the Mayor has state he will not give any more money to "this failed venture" and I believe that. There is also the pesky little matter of a building permit, which Carolyn Cuthrell also didn't mention.

One other thing:

Board members declined to comment or they waved off or ignored reporters as they emerged from the meeting. Spokeswoman Carolyn Cuthrell said the board agreed no member would speak on the record about the statement.

Now as I recall, two duly elected members of council sit on the VPAF board. They are supposedly there to represent the interests of the city, since the city is the main benefactor at this point. This seems like a double bind for said council members. How can they fully represent the interests of the taxpayers and the administration if they agree to oathes of secrecy about board activities? Is it me, or are these people loopy?

How About Scaling Back the Misinformation?

2005-09-13T20:09:00.000-07:00

Other issues have commanded my attention the last few days. But I have stayed up on things and have a few good laughs courtesy of the Times-Dispatch:

To acknowledge the eventual loss of the building but also to look ahead, arts-center boosters handed out pieces of the parquet floor from the store. Each piece was stamped with the date, 2-21-01, and the image of a theater stage with its curtains open.

"It's a reminder that we all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and that the dance floors of tomorrow will be built in the shadow of yesterday's department stores," James E. Ukrop, chairman of the foundation, said at the time.

Maybe it's me, but that whole bit strikes me as a little odd and over the top. In light of current events, it also seems more than a little arrogant. They might be lucky to get anything built at this point.

As with all TD pieces regarding the VPAF and the arts center, there are little bits of fun, courtesy of the Mayor that give life to a daily paper that seems to exist in a journalistic vacuum:

Wilder, meanwhile, has remained aloof.

Waving a dismissive hand as he walked away from an event recently, the mayor grumbled, "I can't keep wasting time on this. . . . I've said what I had to say."

A more careful reading of this article reveals that the previously unreported tensions may be mending in favor of a scaled back project, after blaming the poor funding raising and the 18 million dollar budget increase on the Mayor, naturally:

Sources at the foundation say the arts group's board has been split for several weeks between those who wanted to take up Wilder's suggestion to scale back and those who wanted to push ahead with the whole project.

But board members feared the mayor's blasts were scaring off potential donors and may have convinced some contractors that it wasn't worth bidding on the project -- a reason, some board members say, why bids came in at $111.9 million -- 20 percent higher than they had estimated.

The board split seems to be closing now, for fear that the project will die if Wilder remains opposed, the sources said.

Scaling back, though, would come with its own set of challenges. For example, $4 million of the $5 million gift pledged by the Robins Foundation is dedicated to the music hall.

Without ever saying so directly, the Dispatch hints that the board is closing ranks behind the idea of scaling back and that's how they plan to move forward. This is great news since most everyone capable of forming complete sentences came to that conclusion a few weeks ago.

When asked for comment, Brad Armstrong cuts to the chase:

Foundation President Brad Armstrong said Friday he could not comment on what actions the board might take. He said he expected "a number of decisions about going forward, and as some of those decisions are made, we'll announce them."

Decisions will be made. Excellent. But wait, there's more.

Since 2001, the foundation has found fundraising more difficult and the project more controversial than expected. A new mayor, with new power and a style different from his predecessors, has lambasted the group, saying its plans are too ambitious, its grab for tax dollars too arrogant and its executives too spendthrift.

The T-D is amazingly agile as mashing information together and explaining away the pieces that don't fit together, but this graf is a work of art.

The foundation has had four years to raise funds. This admittedly has been more difficult than they expected and progress has come very slowly. But Mayor Wilder has been in office only nine months and the criticism he has heaped upon the VPAF has had a lot to do with the sheer amount of money given to them and the paucity of results thus far. Additionally, the VPAF looks ridiculous now in light of revelations courtesy of these crime fighters.

The project only became controversial when the actions of the VPAF failed to withstand routine scrutiny, which they apparently never expected. Expect more fun from the Jim and Brad Show in the days ahead. I know I do.

Failed Venture or Time of Preparation?

2005-09-08T15:00:00.000-07:00

The latest Ask the Mayor piece on Richmond.com is worth a look. Two questions, of course, are about the arts center and the Mayor has a little fun with Brad's salary:

Regarding whether any tax funds have gone toward Mr. Armstrong's exorbitant $300,000 salary, it is honestly difficult to say for certain, since the public and private dollars have been so thoroughly co-mingled. I can assure you, though, that not a dime of tax dollars has gone toward this failed endeavor since I have been in office, and I will continue to do everything possible to ensure that public funds do not go to subsidize such individual excess in the future.

I have noticed recently that Mayor Wilder has begun using the phrase "failed endeavor" when speaking about the arts center. Actually, he might use similar words like venture or enterprise, but the word "failed" is starting to pepper his remarks.

What the Hell is Mark Holmberg Talking About?

2005-09-07T06:36:00.000-07:00

Clarke Bustard's well blogged elephant poop column was an example that poorly chosen anecdotes often fail to make ones' point, particularly if the themes have nothing to do with each other.

But Holmberg's attempt to freestyle a piece by engaging in a channeled conversation with himself is a horrible piece of writing and offers a scary peak inside the mind of said writer:

SHUT UP! The looting and lawlessness began almost immediately. Within two days, the city was being run by armed thugs, a city official reported. Tourists were being raped and assaulted by roving gangs, the police superintendent said. There were numerous reports of shots fired at or near rescuers in choppers and boats. Lord of the Flies, bro'.

Newspapers traffic in snappy headlines. Sometimes it seems that people are killing themselves trying to be clever, like the overused "I-stampede" after the RIR computer giveaway fiasco. But Holmberg hits us over the head with his desire to connect the rowdiness at RIR to the mayhem in New Orleans.

Looking into the heart of Katrina's inferno, we see iLoot, iShoot, iRape, iDemand.

It is a must read piece, if only to serve as an example that bad ideas usually result in bad writing. Weird.

Ask Not

2005-09-06T22:54:00.000-07:00

For those who wonder what Mayor Wilder is thinking, look no further. This commentary pretty concisely articulates the Mayor's operating approach to what's broke in Richmond and how it needs fixing. City Council, the Times-Dispatch and all the folks at the VPAF are encouraged to print this out and refer to it often. You need never ask, "Why the hell did he do that?" again.

Given these facts, the question we should all be asking is: Who has benefited from these decisions? I submit that it is not the children, who attend schools with leaky roofs and poor academic track records, and who walk past drug dealers on cracked sidewalks to play in littered and overgrown parks. Instead, over and again, it is the lawyers, the consultants, the architects, the contractors, the developers, the banks, the accountants, and others who benefit the most. Millions upon millions upon millions of dollars, wasted, at taxpayer expense, every single year.

If I have any say in the matter -- and I think I do -- those days are over.

My personal feeling is that the Mayor would like to see an arts center in Richmond. But as this piece makes clear once again, the Mayor has some pretty strong ideas about how that might happen and on what won't happen. And this is exactly what the Mayor is talking about. It seems that among other things, the Mayor's panel looking into wasteful spending found it hard to track how money for legal services got spent:

It said that the Department of Public Utilities couldn't provide invoices or other information about what one law firm did for its $234,018 of bills, while the Broad Street Community Development Authority wouldn't say how it spent nearly $1.2 million in legal fees.

Now people may argue that Doug Wilder wants to kill the arts center. But what he wants to kill is the sense of entitlement and disregard for accountability that has permeated city government for many years now.

Judging from the howls of the entitled, Mayor Wilder is doing just that.

Board Meetings Can Be Fun!

2005-09-01T16:35:00.000-07:00

The VPAF has a board meeting coming up in a couple of weeks. This one should be fun because there certainly is a lot for them to talk about. So I have come up with my own Top Ten List of Things That Will be Overheard at the Next VPAF Board Meeting:

10. Hey Brad, did you piss in the Mayor's Wheaties or what?

9. Has anybody seen my credit card?

8. What kind of stupid name is Manoli Loupassi anyway?

7. You know, a hundred grand did seem a bit high for the "telephone".

6. Everyone will be glad to know that fundraising is moving right along in line with our projections.

5. I thought you ordered the projections.

4. Does Shortpump have a downtown?

3. I told you we should have whacked those Save Richmond guys when we had them in the store.

2. Wine and cheese anyone?

And the number one thing that will be overheard at the next VPAF Board Meeting is:

1. I have an idea! Maybe we should do a feasiblity study?

A Message to You Rudy

2005-08-30T05:59:00.001-07:00

Rudy McCollum might not understand what the election last November was about, but Ray McAllister gets it, and has some fun knocking McCollum around in my favorite T-D column in forever.

His defeat at the hands of Doug Wilder in November was a landslide so overwhelming that it amounted to nothing short of a repudiation of McCollum, of the City Council, of Richmond's form of government, of everything except maybe the furniture.

Can you say regime change, Rudy?

Those Sly Dogs

2005-08-29T23:11:00.000-07:00

The VPAF requested a review of pre-constructions costs for the performing arts center. The VPAF had Manoli Loupassi put the request to the city auditor, and they are apparently obliging. This seems pretty straightforward. But this is the VPAF and the new administration we are talking about. It's not as simple as it seems.

Bill Farrar thinks someone else should be reviewing all of this:

Bill Farrar, the press secretary for the mayor, said the City Ordinance stipulates that the director of finance, which is part of the city administration, is responsible for auditing the reimbursement requests.

Let us leave all of that to the principals to sort out. But it is worth noting that VPAF, under intense pressure to justify it’s spending of city-provided funds, has turned to the city to review its books. Which means that city will be paying for the review to legitimize the expenditures that the city is paying for.

I trust that none of this is lost on Doug. How much do you want to bet that the city auditor and the director of finance are looking at all of this?

What the Hell is Clarke Bustard Talking About?

2005-08-29T22:22:00.000-07:00

I tend to give writers the benefit of the doubt. If I don't get something on first read, I assume that I missed something and go back over it again. I gave up on Clarke's column after the second read. I didn't get it, but I know it wasn't me.

Circus elephants are "niceties, not necessities." It's a scandal that city workers cleaned up after them incompetently.

And the timing is suspicious: Who decided to bring in the Boston Symphony right after the circus? Was it a nefarious plot by powerful special interests to manipulate the city into wasteful spending on the Mosque?

But one point Clarke did manage to make clearly is that if the arts center doesn't come to pass, it is Mayor Wilder's fault:

Wilder is determined to scuttle the complex of theatrical and music spaces planned in a new downtown performing-arts center.

If I recall correctly, the Mayor has come out in favor of a Performing Arts Center. But, like the proposed ballpark in Shockoe Bottom, Mayor Wilder wants a clear financial plan, demonstrable ability to build and manage the facility and he wants to limit the city's liability if the whole things turns into liquid elephant poop, to borrow from Clarke's poorly chosen anecdote.

He may be making a lot of people uncomfortable and he certainly isn't making it easy for the VPAF, but I don't see evidence of the Mayor scuttling anything other than irresponsible use of taxpayer funds. Besides, it shouldn't be easy to get the city pony up twelve or twenty million dollars of taxpayer money if you can't even be bothered to come up with, oh let's see, a recent feasibility study maybe?

On a related point, it recently occurred to me that local news coverage (Hello Times-Dispatch) often characterizes criticism of the VPAF as criticism of the Performing Arts Center. The term arts center critics appears to be used whenever criticism is directed at the foundation. Save Richmond gets this treatment most often, but it also pops up in reference to the Mayor and VPAF criticism more generally.

The phrase "arts center critics" is easy to use, but it subtlety mischaracterizes the debate. I don't know of anyone involved in this ongoing controversy that has publicly voiced opposition to the Performing Arts Center. But there is well-documented criticism of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and the manner in which it is managing the arts center project. Criticizing the foundation does not necessarily mean opposition to the arts center.

Hell, I would love to walk downtown and catch a symphony. I just don't trust the current roster over at the VPAF to make that happen.

The Water Boy

2005-08-25T23:08:00.000-07:00

While cruising through the Metro headlines of the T-D this morning, this headline grabbed my attention:

Loupassi seeks expenses audit of arts group
Council leader asks city auditor to look at reimbursement forms

No shit, Loupassi borrowed somebody's cajones, I thought. First, Councilman Jewell wants an ordinance calling for greater specificity in VPAF financial summaries and now Manoli Loupassi is taking it upon himself to call for an audit of VPAF reimbursement requests. This is too weird. Intrigued, and maybe just a little hopeful that certain folks might be starting to get it, I read on. But two paragraphs later my nascent hopes are dashed. It turns out Loupassi is merely continuing a long standing City Council tradition of carrying Brad Armstrong's water:

Yesterday, the foundation sent a letter to Loupassi asking for a review by Kronzer's office and stressing the need for an "apolitical and accurate audit" conducted by a "qualified professional." Kronzer is a certified public accountant appointed by City Council.

Two things. First, there should be no doubt that the Mayor is in complete control of the conflict between the city and the VPAF. For a few weeks now the VPAF has been floundering to respond to the Mayor's increasing resistance to fund the fiasco known as the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, and they have not been helping themselves along the way.

Secondly, I have noticed that the Mayor tends to telegraph his punches. He says repeatedly what he is thinking, and then follows through with actions that completely catch everyone off-guard. After expressing his unwillingness to provide the VPAF any more money unless his concerns were address, the city issued a stop work order. Did anyone see that coming? Does anyone think they are not related?

So Jim and Brad and should be looking over their shoulders, because for the second time the Mayor has drawn this line in the sand:

The mayor said he believes the city can demand that the Thalhimers site be returned to the city. He also said it is possible the city will want the foundation to repay at least some of the $7.6 million it has received from the city, once a review of expenses is completed.

He may have said that it is "possible" the city will want repayment and that the city "can" reclaim the Thalhimers site, but I figure he is already working on both of these. Heads up Brad.

The First Rules of Holes:

2005-08-21T22:46:00.000-07:00

When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

Someone needs to provide this information to Brad Armstrong. But it wouldn't matter; the man can’t help himself.

"We clearly believe we are providing even more information than the city is requiring," said Brad Armstrong, president of the foundation.

It doesn't matter how often strongly you believe Brad. What you should pay attention to is the chorus of voices telling you that you are not giving them what they want. Hell, there is a member of City Council writing an ordinance specifying what they want to know. If someone on council is asking for more details then you can assume that you are really, really missing the mark. But it would help if you were paying closer attention to exactly what kind of information you are providing:

The VPAF also has asked the City to pay approximately $142,000 for the first half of its building permit fee – paid to the City. A summary of bills prepared by VPAF identified the item as being for “telephone."

It should be quite obvious that the Performing Arts Center is in dire trouble. In my mind, the project is all but dead. The VPAF has zero credibility with the City at this point, and saying that the other guys said it was okay means nothing, most of all to Doug Wilder. In fact, it is hard to imagine the Mayor moving forward with even a scaled down project if Brad Armstrong is onboard. Brad Armstrong's moment of clarity on this is still forthcoming.

If no one else will tell you this Brad, I will. Quit now, slip away quietly and let folks clean this up. The longer you hang around, the worse you are going to look. Especially, if you keep flapping your gums. Also, pray that the Commonwealth's Attorney doesn't read Norm.

Sinking Ship

2005-08-17T23:33:00.000-07:00

Whether they realize it or not, the VPAF is taking on water, a lot of water. At a certain point, it doesn’t matter how much you pump, the ship is going down regardless. We have reached that point with the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation. But the folks at VPAF haven’t figured it out yet.

While the VPAF scrambled in reaction to the stop work order issued last week, Mayor Wilder turned his attention to issue at the heart of this mess, the VPAF’s possible misuse of public
funds.

It would seem the T-D has decided to see if maybe there might be something to all this VPAF criticism after all:

However, a Times-Dispatch review of recent invoices revealed one from Feb. 28 that shows nearly $3,297 in expenses by one of the foundation's consultants, The Projects Group of Fort Worth, Texas,

The expenses include airfares, hotel tips, parking fees, a room at the Marriott in Baltimore's Inner Harbor area, as well as meals at Manchu Wok, Café Ole, Richmond Smokehouse, Luna del Sea and McDonald's. There's also a $56 share of an expense listed as "Agency Limousine."

The VPAF is not going to be able to withstand this scrutiny. Especially with Carolyn Cuthrell publicly making the case against the VPAF:

Foundation spokeswoman Carolyn Cuthrell defended the expenses as appropriate for preconstruction. She said representatives of The Projects Group met in Baltimore with officials from the project's construction management group, Gilbane/Christman, to make sure the design team was sensitive to the budget.

Maybe I missed something, but did she just say that one of the VPAF’s consultants decided to get together with the construction folks at the Inner Harbor Marriott to make sure that everyone was “sensitive to the budget?” A conference call could have covered that.

In a recent post, I mentioned that if the VPAF wanted to get the train back on the tracks, it was going to have to act decisively to respond to the Mayors concerns, and that a reorg was the best way to do that. A new board and the resignation of Brad Armstrong, coupled with freezing the project while a feasibility study was conducted might have saved them. However, that small window of opportunity has slammed shut.

The T-D is fond of mentioned that there is 80 percent support for the Performing Arts Center. That support could have helped VPAF turn this around. But Mayor Wilder is cruising around Richmond with a 90 percent approval rating and he isn’t hearing what he wants to hear.

There isn’t anything for Brad Armstrong and Jim Ukrop to do at this point but make sure they swim away from the propellers.

World Class?

2005-08-08T22:57:00.000-07:00

Richmond.com has a piece on Radius 250, a nifty little concept show that is running at Artspace in Manchester. When I heard about the show, I wondered why they choose 250 miles as the distance and it turns out that the organizers specifically excluded New York City. So they rounded down.

Now, Plant Zero is a very cool place and there was definitely a need for well-designed working space for artists. The whole development benefited from Artspace relocating there and there does seem to be a fair amount of momentum developing in Manachester. But even if you go along with the proposition that one art oriented development can comprise an arts district, there still seems to be a little grandiosity radiating from Plant Zero.

"This is on its way to becoming a world-class arts district." - Bill Chapman, president of the Hamilton Development Group, developers of Plant Zero.

Just out of curiosity, I googled "world class arts district." There are a lot of hits, of course. But if you think about the cities that come up in those searches, it becomes clear that it might be a while before that claim can be taken seriously.

One can say, and it is unquestionably true, that Richmond has a large community of artists. For a city its size, Richmond has many galleries, particularly if you starting factoring in the alternative spaces around town. My hunch is that Manchester probably can be come a thriving art district. But that means more galleries will need to move into the area and it certainly wouldn't hurt if there were more places like Plant Zero. But an area can only support so many developments of that type. So how does a mid-size city with a large number of delapidated buildings and a large but unfocused community of artists create a thriving, maybe even world class arts district?

The answer might be found in Paducah, Kentucky.

The City of Paducah has committed over $1.2million to the Artist Relocation Program with a return private investment from the artists of over $11.5 million. - Paducah Artist Relocation Program Website

Paducah is considerably smaller than Richmond, and from what I can gather, had far less to work with other than a large number of run down houses and the vision of one man and a local government that was willing to think outside the box. Think about it. How crazy would it seem that a city the size of Paducah would be able to attract artists from across the country to set up shop there?

VPAF Financial Statements Face Increase Scrutiny

2005-08-02T22:54:00.000-07:00

That is the headline that should have appeared above the story on the growing flap over VPAF financial disclosures, or rather the lack thereof. Now most people know that the Times-Dispatch is solidly in the VPAF camp. We know this because of the little tag at the end of all stories regarding the VPAF:

"J. Stewart Bryan, chairman of Media General Inc. and the former publisher of The Times-Dispatch, is a member of the foundation's board and is active in its fundraising."

Fair enough. But is necessary to thoroughly misrepresent what it is that is actually being reported? The T-D Headline for this story reads:

Wilder criticizes arts group
Says financial report to city lacking, vows no more city funds"

David Ress then goes on, at great length, to present this as another round of Wilder instigated confrontation with Brad Armstrong and the VPAF. There is a lot of Wilder said this and Armstrong said that, and a general rehashing of the conflict before Ress gets around to mentioning what this story really is about. The release of VPAF financial statements by Save Richmond that seriously challenge the credibility of previous VPAF statements regarding its finances and cast doubt on the financial viability of the Performing Arts Center. In fact, Ress doesn't get around to mentioning this until paragraph 23 by my count.

"Wilder said he thinks the foundation is holding out on him, especially after arts-center critics released financial documents the foundation provided to state officials last month. Those bank and brokerage account statements are meant to support the foundation's bid for some of the $8.5 million of matching funds the state has promised."

Guess what? The statements released to the state don't match the reports provided to the city. Nor do they support the public statements Brad Armstrong.

As with most stories involving the VPAF and Mayor Wilder, there are some real gems.

"Bank accounts will go up and down month by month, but if we had $10 million in the bank I wouldn't feel any more confident than I do now in our pledges."

That's good to hear, but I imagine the people paying higher meal taxes might feel better about VPAF pledges if there were $10 million in the bank.

"His stance surprised City Councilman William J. Pantele, who sits on the foundation's board as a representative of the city. Pantele was appointed to that post as part of the council's agreement to extend a fundraising deadline for the foundation from July 1 to Dec. 31, 2006. Wilder opposed that move."

"I think it is premature" to talk about cutting the foundation off, Pantele said. "They're in the middle of a capital campaign . . . there seems to be some fundraising momentum."

Actually, it is time to start talking about cutting the foundation off. It's past time. And hasn't Pantele figured out that he and the rest of council will never be able to anticipate the Mayor?

It's comforting that this all mightbe coming to a head. Save Richmond isn't going to go away and the increased focus on this fiasco will make it impossible for the Times-Dispatch to whitewash this any longer. Though I suspect they will try. But SR isn't going to let that slide:

"Here’s a dose of reality for Cuthrell: We will be submitting FOIA requests and posting a true picture of VAPAF’s finances every single time the foundation goes to the Commonwealth for matching funds. "

In case the VPAF hasn't figured it out yet, their days of operating in the shadows as a quasi-private organization are over. If there is any real commitment to the lofty goals of the VPAF, then the only way forward is transparency. Full-disclosure is the tool that Brad Armstrong and the VPAF Board will have to use to build public support for this venture and to rebuild a workable relationship with the city. It’s the only tool they have to do that. But they don't have it in them. Besides, if the VPAF were to decide to deal with this mess, then the next step will be a restructuring of the organization. And the first resignation the Board should seek, and the one Mayor Wilder should insist on as a condition to move forward with public money, is Brad Armstrong’s.

But it's going to be much messier and fun than that.

Out of Town Buzzkillers

2005-08-02T21:30:00.000-07:00

River City Rapids thinks Henrico residents should get over having to stand in line with out of towners.

"God, is that so Richmond or what? Get over it."

There is a legitimate gripe, however, in letting the general public have access to these systems without the taxpaying citizens of Henrico County getting dibbs. What is very Richmond in all of this, is the cluelessness of all involved. Did Henrico County really think they could put 1,000 laptops for sale at fifty dollars without triggering a feeding frenzy? And as RRC already pointed out, these laptops could have been quietly offered for sale on Ebay and satisfied the legal requirements of a public sale and raised a lot more money. When they had to move the sale to the RIR, it was proof that everyone involved had missed the boat on this.

Save Richmond Turns Over the Rock - Film at 11

2005-08-02T16:33:00.000-07:00

If you haven't been following the VPAF debacle up to this point, don't worry. This is a perfect time to tune in. Save Richmond has hit one of out the park with their Freedom of Information requests and their efforts are finally starting to get the attention they deserve. NBC 12 picked it up first, but this has got legs and there will a lot more fun to come. I wonder if Brad Armstrong will come to regret his snottily terse reply to Save Richmond.

In the NBC 12 story, there was this choice quote, which is getting a lot of play:

“Their website is fun reading, but it’s not really based on a lot of reality.”—VAPAF spokeswoman Carolyn Cuthrell

But my attention was drawn to this little tidbit:

In fact, they say work continues to go on inside the Carpenter Center and the campaign is gaining steam. Cuthrell says, “The money continues to come in and we're very optimistic that we're going to get this funded and built."

This has an oddly familar ring to it.

“We’re making progress in Iraq.” — President Bush, 2/4/05

Bagdad Bob indeed.

Getting Started

2005-06-02T22:21:00.000-07:00

In the last six months I have been actively following developments regarding the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and the larger efforts to revitalization downtown. With the election of Mayor Wilder, it is fair to say that these subjects have become a lot more entertaining. But the increased attention that these topics are getting because of the unfolding power play between City Council and the Mayor also provides an opportunity to explore some important questions about the direction of Richmond's redevelopment, the role of a regional arts center and a host of other related questions.

I watched, much more passively, as the City of Norfolk struggled with many of these same questions. When I first moved to Norfolk, Granby Street was a wasteland. The pedestrian mall had just been removed and after 6 p.m. the entire downtown area resemble a ghostown.

Not long ago I was in Norfolk and had the opportunity to walk along Granby Street. It's not overstating things to say that downtown Norfolk has been radically transformed. Granby is a busy, bustling place. The Pagoda, a long neglected landmark, has been beautifully restored and an large Japanese Garden wraps around the structure. New residential construction erected at the edge of the business center has been fairly smartly incorporated into the landscape and there are many new businesses and cafe's springing up across downtown. It feels alive.

There were mis-steps to be sure. While Paul Fraim will argue with you about it, it is hard to grasp the logic of dropping an enclosed suburban mall in the heart of downtown. And don't get me started on Nauticus. But despite miscues, Norfolk has down a pretty remarkable job of reinventing itself. And they continue to build upon past successes.

There's still time for Richmond. Despite what some might say about the Convention Center, nothing has happened yet that can't be overcome. Hell, even Nauticus sort of worked itself out.
Just don't say that to the people who bought harbor view condo's ten years ago.

I came up with the idea for this blog last year during the election and I have been waiting for an opportune moment to jump into the fray. But I realized yesterday that there are few perfect moments in life, and it would be wise to follow the old zen adage and "start where you are."

So here goes.