By the time the public got organized against the project—a record number of people standing against it before council!!—the VAPAF deal had been sewn up in "private." That means you and I didn't matter.

But that was the "old" Richmond, right? We don't do those kinds of things anymore! We don't make backroom deals in smoke-filled rooms now that Sheriff Wilder is forming posses and hanging rustlers! Right?

Um...wrong. How disconcerting is the prospect that city council will meet "privately" with VAPAF to hash out a face-saving deal? Taxpayers will recall that it was "private" meetings that set the VAPAF plan in stone in the first place. By okaying every bit of VAPAF's shady plan back then, the re-elected members of council have a lot to answer for now, and it might be a good idea to say hello to them—ALL of them—before Brad Armstrong and Jim Ukrop finagle another couple of mil of your lunch money to keep this blue-haired private party on schedule.

As readers of these pages know, Mayor Wilder will find much to question as he does his audit, including little things like dodgy fund-raising figures, a buffet of different cost estimates and extravagant salaries that dwarf his. But what has been TOTALLY LOST in the shuffle are the cultural questions, the questions we've been asking all along.

Should city council meet privately with VAPAF, these are some of the questions—there's plenty about the foundation's finances, too—they should be asking Brad Armstrong. We kind of doubt they can muster the critical process, but hope springs.... The only thing we can say for sure is that Brad won't be wearing his Chesterfield biker outfit to this one.

March 16
Start choppin'

"I am completely convinced they'll see every dollar of our pledges is solid, every number we've given is accurate . . . and this project is worthy of the continued support from the city."—Brad Armstrong, in today's Times-Dispatch

That could change VAPAF's financial picture dramatically. So what about it, fellas? Up for some digging?

March 15
Failing upwards
Really, only the Times-Dispatch could put a brave face on the convention center's prospects, saying its bookings are "more than expected." Seeing as it cost $170 million to expand the dumb thing, and it's losing $4-5 million a year, and the hotel taxes that were supposed to pay for it are way short of what they're supposed to be, a question occurs to us.

What exactly were they expecting?

Something that loses $10 million a year? Worse? The T-D runs a chart showing the center's projected bookings. If you'd like to know what was really promised, take a peek at page 28 of the Brookings Institution's study of convention-center economics.

A subsequent projection by the consultant in late 1999 was that the expanded center (with a $165 million price tag) would bring 140,000 newhotel room nights of business to the metro area. But in its second year of operation, the Greater Richmond Convention Center generated a total volume of 44,762 convention-related room nights—less than a third of projected new nights.

Meanwhile, we learn in the same article that the parking lots, which serve, you know, nothing—and which the Broad Street CDA thought might help out downtown more than a bunch of smelly old buildings that the city could've tried to dangle in front of small businesses looking for the next Carytown—why, it seems those parking lots are hemmorhaging money too! And the genius behind those parking lots?

Brad Armstrong. Yes friends, the same CEO of the foundation trying to build a performing arts center on Broad, you know, the one that's a guaranteed, sure-fire, expertly studied performing arts center that will definitely turn around Broad Street with only a hundred million in taxpayer dollars in initial costs and then yearly subsidies until the next Ice Age.

Brad Armstrong, who makes enough in a year to lift an entire southern African village out of extreme poverty (seriously, read the cover story in last week's Time)*. Could he possibly be the person Paul Goldman, Wilder's Richelieu, is refering to when he says "How many times have we had these so-called experts come in and sell the city on this and that? It seems to me deal after deal has fallen through."

We can only hope. Because it's only our—those of us who live in the city, that is—money. Even though we're not the people they're hoping will come if we "build it." The convention center. The Canal Walk. The Marketplace. Main Street Station. The stadium. And on. And on. And on.

Because the only thing anyone would have to do to beat our expectations is stop spending our money on stupid crap.

*We're not casting aspersions on Brad's altruism, which we're sure is ample. But if he really wanted to do something for others, maybe he'd consider getting out of public life.

March 10
Making the sale
More bad news for Brad Armstrong et al. on the theoretical front: a new study by the RAND corporation raises serious questions about arts groups' economic impact. The report, much like us, is not advocating less public funding of arts. It just calls on arts group to tap the brakes on the economic arguments for public funding. And if you want to know what's wrong with what I guess you could call the public-private-partnership vision of downtown Richmond's economic future, this study, as well as the Brookings Institution's recent study that demonstrates the shaky economics of convention centers, is required reading. (There's a story on Morning Edition that goes into some depth on the RAND study.)

March 5
Here's the beef!
Andrew writing: I was wrong about Doug Wilder. I didn't vote for him because I figured that since he had the support of Richmond's business elites, he'd serve as a surrogate for their ever-daffier plans for downtown. That was stupid. Since he's been in office, Wilder's done his best to loosen the grip elites have had on city government for decades. Yeah, he's operating as a one-man government, but I think it's the only way out of Richmond's torpor.

So I was pretty interested to read that Mayor Doug resigned as president of Richmond Renaissance, a largely ceremonial post held by every mayor, because he's unsure about Renaissance's support for the new R-Braves ballpark proposed for Shockoe Bottom. Now, I differ from a lot of my friends in that I don't have a problem with Richmond Renaissance. I know a couple of the people who work there, including the director, Jack Berry, and like them a lot (in fact, I had contracted to do some writing for them, but it fell through due to time contraints on my part), and I think they genuinely want great things for Richmond. We're not always on the same page, but hell, neither are Don and I.

That said, I think Hizzoner made the right move here, mainly because of the people on Renaissance's board. Richmond's a small town, and as such it's usually necessary to work in tight corners. So it's hard for Renaissance to be completely objective when, say, Jim Ukrop is a boardmember, as well as a prime mover behind the performing arts center and the ballpark (which, again, unlike a lot of my friends, I'm on the fence about).

So what's exciting to me about this development is that Wilder wants to walk alone on these issues. He's gonna make up his own mind and not be led by Booty or Jimmy or that rich lady with the big red bow on her head. He might end up endorsing all the ideas the elites have for downtown, and that's fine, but whatever conclusions he comes to, he's gonna be his own man.

And I think we can all agree that people of that description have been pretty hard to come by in Richmond government for a long time. So here's to you, Mayor Doug. Keep asking the hard questions and go your own way.

March 3
What do leatherback turtles, snow leopards and "that thing" on Broad have in common?
From today's Times-Dispatch

Arts center suffers money setback

But the foundation's leader says the board is determined to see the project through

BY WILL JONES

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Mar 2, 2005

The plan to open a performing-arts center in downtown Richmond in 2007 took a blow when the General Assembly set aside $6.5 million for the project -- less than one-fourth of the amount requested.

Gov. Mark R. Warner isn't likely to up the ante for the arts center through a budget amendment, said Del. Vincent F. Callahan Jr., R-Fairfax and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

He backed a bill during the recent session that would have used state-backed bonds to provide $85.6 million for museums, art centers and other cultural facilities statewide, including $29.8 million for the center on East Broad Street.

"I doubt he will make any changes, quite frankly," Callahan said yesterday of Warner. "I don't think he wants to get involved in spending more state funds on nonstate agencies. I don't think he'll use up his points on that thing."

Warner has made no decisions, spokesman Kevin Hall said.

"We still are evaluating the budget compromise adopted by the General Assembly on Sunday," he said in an e-mail.

Brad Armstrong, president of the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, acknowledged some disappointment over the legislative session but also said he's grateful for the $6.5 million and called it "a further recognition that this project is important to Virginia."

He previously said the arts center might not be able to stay on schedule if the state provided as much as $10 million, but this week he wasn't conceding anything.

"Our board is steadfast in their determination that this project get done," he said.

James E. Ukrop, chairman of the foundation's board of directors, also was optimistic. "We're appreciative of what we received and let down with what we didn't get, but we haven't rolled over yet," he said.

Andrew Beaujon, of the group Save Richmond, which has been highly critical of plans for the arts center, expressed doubt that the project would be able to stay on schedule but declined to comment further.

With the $6.5 million from the state, the foundation reports having raised about $62 million in cash and written pledges. The total includes $22.5 million from private sources and $39.5 million from public sources. Those public funds include $27.8 million earmarked by City Council in 2003 when it agreed to raise the city's meals tax from 5 percent to 6 percent.

The foundation stands to lose $15.8 million of those funds if it fails to raise by July 1 enough money to complete the arts center's first phase. That phase, estimated at $93 million, would bring a new adaptable music hall and an expanded Carpenter Center in the block of East Broad Street where the Thalhimers department store has been demolished.

In addition to seeking federal funds and other private donations, the foundation is counting on $12 million to $14 million that would be generated if the city of Richmond and the counties of Chesterfield, Henrico and Hanover agree to raise their hotel occupancy taxes by 1 percent.

Unlike officials in the other localities, a majority of the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors has balked at the increase. However, Chairman Edward B. Barber said yesterday that he is still trying to find a palatable way to fund the arts center. He would not provide specifics but said he hopes to have the issue resolved in the next month or so.

"Even if the answer is no, folks need to have an answer," he said.

J. Stewart Bryan, chairman and chief executive officer of Media General Inc. and a former publisher of The Times-Dispatch, is a member of the arts foundation's board and chairman of its major gifts campaign.

Media General has pledged to contribute $1 million to the foundation over five years in cash and in-kind support, which could include promotional space in The Times-Dispatch, as well as research and printing.

Contact Will Jones at (804) 649-6911 or wjones@timesdispatch.com

First, let me just congratulate TimesDispatch.com for making itself even harder to read: The website that consistently brings you headlines such as "Done with decals? / Phaseout of tax stickers in Tidewater may spread the scrapping of scraping Phaseout of tax stickers in Tidewater may spread the" now requires you to register. There's no opt-out if you don't want them to share your info with advertisers, either. Great work!

Second, you may have noticed that we haven't posted in the past two weeks. This is because right now I'm the only one who can put stuff up on the site and I'm busy as hell with my new book and a couple other projects; soon you'll see the debut of a new Save Richmond site that will make it easier for both Don and I to post, and might just introduce a couple of new irritants to the debate over the city's future.

Okay, let's get to it. So it seems downtown's future isn't assured after all. Odd, considering the caliber of businesspeople involved, but it now appears that the financiers' view of Broad Street isn't quite as rosy as that of Brad Armstrong et al. Specifically, the Hotel Miller & Rhoads is in serious trouble. You can read a somewhat optimistic take on this situation in the T-D, but don't sleep on Scott Bass' excellent and more skeptical Style Weekly account of the same problem. The bottom line is this: Richmond's tourist business, middling at best, is the core of every current plan to revitalize downtown. The philosophy that's brought us to this sorry state of affairs: "Build it and they will come."

Unfortunately, we're not gonna have Kevin Costner to kick around when downtown boasts an empty convention center, a dark performing arts center, a half-empty (or should we say half-full?) Marriott and a vacant, graffitoed Miller & Rhoads building surrounded by myriad gleaming surface parking lots. For over a year now, we've been beating the same drum: The wrong people are in charge of revitalizing Richmond. They're the wrong people because they view downtown as a mall that only needs a decent anchor tenant to take off. It's the same thinking that brought you two failed downtown malls, a barely used Canal Walk and that same empty convention center.

It's that same old song: "How can we get people to come downtown?" By which they mean people from the suburbs and points beyond. Of course, there already are people downtown, but we have to drive 15 miles to see a movie or buy a pair of khakis. And God forbid we should have kids--then we have to figure out whether to take our chances with a wheezing school system or move to the suburbs ourselves.

So here's a prescription for every tanking project on Broad Street. Dispense with the consultant studies that promise the moon (and the population of the Earth) and ask this question first: How will this project help the people who are ALREADY HERE? If the answer isn't "immediately, tangibly and indisputably," move on to the next idea, and preferably the next group of people. Like all homeowners in the city, I'm facing a sizable increase in my property taxes this year; I'm not jazzed about this money going from my pocket to the already well-lined ones of idiot consultants and yapping civic boosters with their charts and graphs.

Time is running out for the city of Richmond to come to grips with the fact that suburban businessmen aren't the right people to deal with a city that's changing every day. We can keep chasing a fantasy of Broad Street to bring people here, or we can think about using it to keep people here. Is that such a hard call?

February 16
Carrying water
Andrew writing: Man, I wish I could get the Times-Dispatch editorial board to do some work for me (the Diaper Genie really needs cleaned). But I guess since I'm not a multimillionaire newspaper publisher who also happens to head fund-raising for the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation, I can only look on in admiration as the nation's worst editorial page makes a fund-raising pitch for the performing arts center. In this particularly notable piece of political inconsistency—when exactly are tax hikes okay and not okay for these intellectual featherweights?—Ross MacKenzie et al. size up the fund-raising prospects for the $500 bazillion arts center and conclude that since tax money is slipping away, corporate donors should step up.

Well stop the goddamn presses. I'm sure that this never even freaking occured to VAPAF. Get corporations to donate money—brilliant! Fiendishly simple!

Or maybe, just maybe, Brad Armstrong is already a familiar site in the lobbies of big companies quartered here, but the poobahs he's been pestering have decided that the plan for the performing arts center makes no sense whatsoever (would it be a low blow to suggest that a city in which police threaten to "put a bullet through" performance artists isn't quite ready to become the arts capital of the Southeast?). Whatever one's views on corporate America, you generally don't get too successful without knowing how to read a business plan.

Finally, the T-D suggests that corporations who pony up will be modern "Medicis," the Florentine family that was a vital patron of the arts for two hundred years. They were also brutal, unelected absolutists—the ed. board's kind of people, apparently.

February 14
Steel yourself for what's next
Perhaps the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation will pull a rabbit out of a hat and get enough funding from the General Assembly to keep going with its dream of an arts center downtown. Next hurdle: building the damn thing. A feat that's considerably more expensive now than it was when the plans were drawn up five years ago, even more expensive than when the architect's drawings were approved last year.

Today's Washington Post has a story about how schools in Northern Virginia are getting buffeted by the skyrocketing cost of construction steel. Budgets approved two years ago are 40 to 50 percent below actual costs. Part of this is a factor of energy costs; another is that China's own construction boom is driving up the price of steel and concrete.

This could be disastrous for VAPAF's plans. VAPAF CEO Brad Armstrong recently said the foundation is gonna vote by July on a steel-buying contract. By then the summer driving season will be in full swing, making the transportation of materials that much more expensive, even if worldwide construction grinds to a halt (summer is such an unpopular time to build). And as we've seen recently, the financing for this project has a razor-thin margin of error. One blow to the budget and we could be looking at a hole on Broad Street for a good long time.

February 12
Scale it back

"There is none of our current major donors who want to see the project scaled back," [Brad Armstrong] said. "It certainly isn't a very attractive option, but I don't want to rule anything out." ("Arts center needs state funds to stay on track"), Richmond Times-Dispatch, today

Too big At the start, the arts center was supposed to provide a home for TheatreVirginia and a renovated Carpenter Center for everything else. Renovations to the National and Empire theaters, and a festival park where Thalhimers stood, would make arts more accessible. So far so good. But then TheatreVirginia went the way of the buffalo. And the Landmark became a part of the plan. And there had to be a jazz club, so the project wouldn't look too...pale. Then there had to be a music education center. And a black box theater. And finally, after months of print campaigning by Times-Dispatch arts critic Clarke Bustard, a music hall in the old Thalhimers space.
How to salvage it Brad opened an important door today. Let's walk through it. Renovate the Carpenter Center, landscape the demolished Thalhimers area into that park, and renovate the National. The latter's a thousand-seat venue, exactly the number the music hall was supposed to accommodate. Use it.

Too expensive Along with the ballooning plan came ballooning costs. The performing arts center went from $80 million to $180 million before a single beam was sunk. Virginia Performing Arts Foundation CEO Brad Armstrong had basically an impossible job—getting the city's arts groups on board required more venues, and more mission creep and more money. Despite early promises that this center would be built largely with private money, there just isn't enough a constituency for our—let's continue to be real here—fairly mediocre performing arts groups outside the immediate Richmond area. It didn't help fund-raising any when Brad's exorbitant salary was revealed (here, but honestly, we were just trying to find out how much money VAPAF had raised!). So VAPAF looked to a meals-tax increase, alienating a lot of folks, and a hotel tax, alienating more, and finally came to the state with its hands out for $30 million. It'll get between $5 and $10 million, and according to today's paper, that's not enough to keep things on track.
How to salvage it First, the city should hire an outside auditor to determine exactly how much money VAPAF has. Brad's claims vary too widely to have any meaning at this point. But if there is in fact $55 million available, by gum, couldn't we do something for that small amount?

Too late See today's Times-Dispatch for the dope on that. Even though the article still relies way too much on Brad's numbers, the message is clear: 2007 isn't gonna happen.
How to salvage it The city should convene a board consisting of arts experts from Richmond and beyond and determine exactly what can be built and how soon. Let's throw out this Rube Goldberg device of an arts-center plan and start fresh. No more people who are hired because of connections familial, personal or commercial. Get some of the area's arts entrepreneurs involved (David Lowery, the dude from Candyland, Jimmy Bland). Get the public involved. Let's get some wings on this turkey. A plan that appeals to more than a small segment of Richmond society types will certainly gain the attention of the General Assembly.

There's nothing wrong with dreaming big, but the current plan doesn't have an exposed pair of underwear's chance in the Virginia House of Delegates to survive. Before arts fizzles like retail, conventions and every other hair-brained idea for revitalizing Richmond's downtown before it, let's move quickly to turn this loser into something we can all be proud of.

February 11
Death of a thousand cuts
As you make your last-minute Valentine's Day flower orders, please consider sending a bouquet to Del. Bob Marshall, who apparently didn't share Brad Armstrong's sense of "buzz" about the performing arts center and slipped in a last-minute cut to the funding VAPAF was seeking from the state.

Not that it matters—by July 1st, VAPAF has to show it's raised $93 million to get the rest of the meals-tax money. If I were mayor Doug, I'd be calling Barnes and Noble right now and seeing whether they might be interested in a primo downtown location.

February 8
Numbers of the beastly
From a post on Richmond City Watch from someone who sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Maybe we should sit back and let Brad Armstrong do the work of stopping the performing arts center!

Let's take a look at the numbers as they stand today:

State funding - $5-$10 million. $20+ million short of VaPAF's fantasy.

County funding - $0. $14 million short (VaPAF has yet to do their dog and pony show before any Board of Supervisors for hotel tax money and they will be in hostile territory in at least one locality; too bad they have positioned themselves in an 'all or nothing' mode with the counties.)

City funding - $12 million from the meals tax - they're wa-a-a-y short of the $93 million they need to raise to qualify for the other +/- $16 million. (Their prospects with future city funding are politically cloudy. One of Rudy McCollum's largest contributors was - ooops - Brad Armstrong. (Ref:www.vpap.org). While many VaPAF board members contributed to Wilder's campaign - along with a large chunk of the rest of the planet's population - the 2nd largest individual donor at $5,000 was Pramod C. Amin. Who, you say? Just the guy that owns a lot of area motels. He was interviewed at length in Style Weekly 10/29/03 and he does not think much of VaPAF and the Convention Center. Unfortunately, VaPAF board members heavily supported Tom Benedetti for City Council with only token contributions from a handful going to Mr. Pantele, the incumbent. Once again VaPAF bet on the loser.

I fearlessly predict that Brad Armstrong will make a public statement on how splendid fund-raising is going.

(Oh, and by the way, the Robins family recent donation was directed at the new performance hall, so no new hall means no money from them.)

Available funds for the National, the Empire, and the Landmark - $0.

Available funds for operating expenses and endowment - $0.

• Last week Brad Armstrong hauled the usual supporters of the performing arts center (sadly, no children throwing rose petals, but it was a school day) down to the General Assembly to make the case for the 30 large. Despite Brad's later emailed claim that "[T]here was a buzz in the building about" VAPAF's show—which apparently consisted of Brad asking everyone in the room who supported the bill "to stand"; great PR, dude—the committee denied the proposal. Not because VAPAF was asking for yet more public funds for a private center nor because the "plan" for said center is so poor. No, they denied VAPAF because in an age of budget surplus they were proposing a (wait for it) bond issue to raise the money. According to Paul Goode's account of the meeting, budget poo-bah John Chichester wasn't thrilled about the Commonwealth going into debt to support a privately-owned tourist attraction, so they said they'd look into a direct appropriation instead.

• Yesterday the budget committees released their recommendations: The House is allocating $10 million to VAPAF; the Senate, $5. This will get worked out in committee. Even if the Assembly splits the difference, that's still, of course, a lot of money, but it's far short of what VAPAF was hoping for. This morning, VAPAF's Judy Ford told the Times-Dispatch ""At least we're still in the ballgame, We've got to play the game a little longer. We still have the conferees and the budget has to go to the governor." Meaning they're hoping that somehow the rest of the money will get added in.

In which case we urge all involved to renovate the Carpenter Center and the National if there's money, and then recede like bad dreams in daylight. Our recommendation, of course, is that the Commonwealth starve VAPAF into reality. Click here to find out who your state senator and representative are, and follow the link to email them if you'd rather your tax money not go to another loser plan for our downtown.

February 1
All the children of the world joining hands
Andrew writing: Brad Armstrong and as many of the VAPAF gang as they can rouse at 8:30 a.m. will be at the State Capitol Wednesday for a meeting where the Senate Finance Committee will vote up or down VAPAF's plan to get the Commonwealth to pay for a music hall in Richmond. I'm in an unusual position here, in that I generally support arts funding (hey, the wife's European). But the plan for the Virginia Performing Arts Center is so flimsy that I'm rooting for this one to take a dive; I think that if (big if) the Performing Arts Center gets built its inevitable failure will poison the well for any future attempts by legitimate, non RICO-statute-courting performing arts organizations.

So I guess I'm just hoping that old Republican magic works one more time. I have to work so I can't attend the hearing (Senate room B in the General Assembly building at 9th and Broad if you can make it), but I hate to miss one of VAPAF's productions. Their dog-and-pony show when they steamrolled City Council into raising the meals tax to fund the PAC was so gaudy it was almost admirable. At the end of Jim Ukrop's speech, a bunch of totally uncompensated city schoolchildren hoisted a garland of supportive postcards and danced around the room, giggling in anticipation of the construction of a palace of boring music that will require their taxes for most of their lifetimes as it wheezes toward permanent vacancy.

If you can make it, please do let us know if they manage to top that.

On a somewhat related note, props to John Murden for his impressions of an ACORN summit on "Richmond's Disappearing History." John's website is great.

January 28
Pungent! Vulgar! Other than that, Mr. Chichester, how did you enjoy the play?
Gee, it's really funny, but VAPAF's plan to include other arts organizations in its funding bill seems to have hit a snag. The other arts organizations have noticed that VAPAF put itself down for $29 million while everyone else gets much, much less.

(Update: Try this link if the registration thingy gives you tsouris.)

January 25
Update
Apparently the "impact statements" on VAPAF's bills before the General Assembly were published today. These statements said the bills were technically incorrect, and that VAPAF would have to spell out exactly how it plans to spend the 29.8 million in tax money it's asking for. (We really do look forward to reading this.)

Gee, you'd think with all the lawyers on that board there'd be SOMEONE who knew how to craft legislation. Isn't it a pain when the little people hold you to their ridiculous "standards"?

January 25
Amtrak of the Arts

Is the state really getting ready to fork over $30 million to the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation?

After dope-slapping the VAPAF last year when it came trolling for public funds, the Virginia General Assembly is considering another funding request this year from everyone's favorite well-heeled downtown beggars. Legislation currently in committee in both the house and senate, bills HB 2048 & SB 1129, would give state bond authority to the foundation and the downtown arts center. Which, as you know, has a bit of an image problem right now:

"I think [the downtown performing arts center] needs to be scaled back in terms of size and scope," says Robin Miller in a recent interview with Richmond ("Now even happier news!").com. "They're having too much trouble raising funds, so I think the project could be wound down to a more manageable size—maybe cut the number of venues from five down to four or three. For a city the size of Richmond, it can be scaled down and still work."

Miller, a respected Richmond developer, is hardly a guy with tactics that will sadden you. He, like the arts-loving pragmatists of Save Richmond, is simply being honest about a situation that is now relying on pure fantasy and hubris to move forward. With private money a distant dream, and a fund-raising deadline looming (otherwise it loses a bunch of the meals-tax money it lobbied for), the VAPAF is hardly scaling back, reaching out and being realistic. Instead it is turning up the heat on the General Assembly to pass HB 2048 and SB 1129—"find contact information for the legislators you feel you can be most effective with or are at all comfortable contacting" says an email that recently went out to VAPAF insiders.

We're with you on the comfort thing, dudes. Two things we always try to avoid here at Save Richmond: prison wine and the Virginia General Assembly. Luckily, there are knowledgable people within earshot, fellow critics of your exclusionary and wasteful arts center plan—troubleshooters we call them—who have high tolerance levels for discomfort and jobs that require them to stay anonymous. We go to them for assurance and ask: does this boondoggle have a shot?

"The Q & A attachment is really kind of funny," our Gen Ass Expert says, looking over the latest VAPAF email. "It says the funding for the non-profits will be through the Virginia Resource Authority. Sec. 62-1-198 of The Code of Virginia has the poop on the Virginia Resource Authority and a specific list of what its financing can be used for—and these projects clearly do not qualify. The VAPAF indicate that they have people clamoring to be patrons of the bills but each only has one patron with no co-patrons—hardly a ringing endorsement.

He continues: "Looking at their spreadsheet I couldn't help but note some assumptions: 'Out of state visitors will stay two nights and one day.' I seem to recall that the VAPAF's consultants made the claim that 25 percent of paying visitors will be from out-of-state, based on attendance at the Virginia Museum's "blockbuster exhibits" (And how many of those have there been in the last 20 years?). Who is going to stay two nights for a concert? And if they are here for a convention, they aren't spending any additional food or lodging money."

Says our man on the scene, "I have been e-mailing the appropriate committee members to delete the $29,800,000 public bond authorization for the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation facilities. The VAPAF has courteously provided a contact list for the legislature. They included all members of both houses, so if this goes beyond the committee stage, then their list makes a credible mailing list. Remember that four of the delegates on their contact list voted to change the meal tax process that the VAPAF used with Mayor Rudy, and none voted to support the meals tax process as-is."

And there's another bill up for consideration, our man reports, a very ironic piece of legislation for readers of THIS site. Thankfully, it has a good chance of passing.

"HB 2023 requires a voter referendum before meals taxes can be imposed or raised by cities. It cleared the Finance Committee 17-5, including all Richmond area delegates of both parties on the committeee. This could be called the Mayor Rudy Memorial Bill—it clearly shuts down the meals tax gravy train."

Our correspondent signs off by reminding us that it's a short legislative session at the General Assembly. Which means anything can happen.

January 18
Email of the day
From Scott "Eagle Eyes" Nystrom, on my question about why business leaders apply a different standard to civic projects than to their own investments:

It's b/c they are playing with OPM (not OPP, but OPM—other people's money) and there is no risk to them personally. It's funny how all of the enterprises where these guys risk their own capital are better studied and tend to work out in the end. Which is why it is doubly significant that they [VAPAF] haven't been able to raise much private $. It's the same in my field—I only trust folks who eat their own cooking.

Take the case of Richmond, VA. Three successive consultant studies, in 1990, 1995, and October 1999, made the case for tripling the size of the Richmond Convention Center, financing it through a metropolitan area wide hotel tax. The argument was that the benefits of the increased attendance at the larger center, in the form of a greatly increased volume of convention attendees and their hotel use, would flow to hotels in suburban counties as well as the city. In a 1995 study, the consultant projected that two to three years after opening, an expanded center would attract 208,000 annual attendees who would use a total of 416,000 hotel room nights. A subsequent projection by the consultant in late 1999 was that the expanded center (with a $165 million price tag) would bring 140,000 newhotel room nights of business to the metro area. But in its second year of operation, the Greater Richmond Convention Center generated a total volume of 44,762 convention-related room nights—less than a third of projected new nights.

With the commitment of such huge sums to convention centers and related facilities comes a serious second cost—the opportunity cost of not investing this money in other public goods, even those aimed at downtown revitalization and economic development.

The taxes on restaurant meals, car rentals, and general sales taxes that pay for convention centers are legitimate public revenue sources, which could be used for a broad array of local public purposes. The investment of $400 or $600 million in downtown revitalization—including housing, retail, and infrastructure—could provide a substantial development stimulus and inducement to private investment, for example. And in any given city, investments in transportation, industry cluster development, schools, neighborhood development, or any number of other priorities may be likely to yield far more bang for the buck. These projects have greater direct appeal to local residents, and thus offer greater likelihood of success.

In short, at a time when city finances are obviously stressed, the price of a failed convention and visitor strategy can be measured in terms of all the other investments, services, and fiscal choices that will be never realized as a result.

[T]here is no evidence that the convention center building boom is over or even seriously slowing. And so the competition for events—large and small—becomes ever fiercer.

The declines in events and attendance experienced by convention centers in recent years do not simply reflect a move from one city to a less attractive one, or a dramatic restructuring of a particular event. Rather, they are the product of industry consolidation...reductions in business travel in the face of increasing cost and difficulty, and alternative means of conveying and gathering information.

That's Richmond for you. Proudly, defiantly suiting up for the wrong game.

January 18
The biggest lie
The reason there are plans to build a performing arts center downtown is because the Greater Richmond Convention Center is in such a bad way. Convention center officials don't deny that attendance is off by half on the last great thing that was supposed to save Broad Street instead of stuff regular people care about. The problem, they insist, is that the view across the street from the convention center is so dreadful.

Enter the junkets and the foundations and the consultants; enter the half-assed plans to build yet another huge project that will save Broad Street instead of encouraging businesses that regular people care about. How can we call a carefully studied plan "half-assed," one might ask in indignation? Well, let's start with the fact that the music hall on Broad Street wasn't a part of any study for the performing arts center. There's no evidence to support the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation's claims that the music hall will be successful—just the same empirical nonsense that led to the convention center's construction.

In fact, 30 percent of the doomed hotel tax that's being pitched as fund-raising for the performing arts center will directly fund the convention center.

Today, the New York Times reports on a Brookings Institution study that says the there's a glut of convention space in the U.S., and that the business of conventions will only get worse in years to come. Cities such as New York are having trouble renting their convention centers. Where does that leave cities such as our own? (Download the study here.)

In the article, Robert V. Canton of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who disputes some of the report's findings, grants that "Some communities had no business building or expanding convention facilities." It's kind of hard to think he's not talking about communities exactly like ours. There's still time not to make another huge mistake, but is there anyone in power bold enough to stop another trainwreck?

January 6
Wrong for so long
Not to cast aspersions on the Times-Dispatch editorial board's romance with Mayor Wilder, but we were cleaning out some old boxes in the basement yesterday and discovered this gem wrapped around an old gravy boat. "Demonstrable deviousness"? We say: Pick your friends wisely. Most of the people who wrote this are, incredibly, still haunting the Incompetent Lady's ed. board.

Monday, Nov. 6 1989

Tomorrow Virginia's voters will choose a new Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General. They also will choose a new House of Delegates and various constitutional officers around the state.

During the past two weeks we have made known our preferences in a number of contests—preferences listed in the box below. In this space today we should like to summarize our reasons for supporting Marshall Coleman for Governor.

First, Coleman is superior on the issues. From taxes and drugs to crime and right-to-work, Coleman speaks forthrightly—and better than his opponent. Coleman says he will not sign a tax increase unless first favored in a referendum. He says drugs will be the "central issue" of his administration. He is tough on crime and unequivocal in support of right-to- work. In contrast, Doug Wilder is a mass of contradictions—unreliable, wishy-washy, and squishy-soft. Regarding such key issues as taxes, drugs, VMI, even abortion, he refuses to take a straightforward stand. On the issues, Wilder has behaved like a giant squid—concealing many of his positions in a vast inky cloud.

Second, Coleman is superior in terms of political philosophy. Both candidates have changed their views, but Coleman (we have it on the authority of Washington Post columnist David Broder) far less so. Coleman has moved from Liberal Republicanism to conservative moderation. In contrast, Wilder has moved from Radical Democratism to the purist Leftism; Coleman calls him, accurately, "an ardent, unapologetic, Liberal." It is enough to say of Wilder that a year ago he was Virginia's most enthusiastic advocate of Michael Dukakis.

Third, Coleman is superior in terms of character and integrity. He is credible—a man Virginians can trust. In contrast, Wilder is incredible -- a man with an unconvincing devotion to the truth. Wilder has been a slumlord. He has been reprimanded by the Virginia Supreme Court. He has been at least sloppy and probably deceptive in his financial dealings. He has sought to use his public office to advance his private interests. On ethics as on the issues, Wilder is—to put it gently—an artful dodger. No man with his demonstrable deviousness deserves to be Governor of Virginia.

Fourth, Coleman is superior in terms of party. Fair and honest government depends on a viable two-party system. Virginia's legislature is heavily Democratic; its Democratic tough-guys operate as though it were their private principality. Only with a Republican Governor can Virginians impose on their government a semblance of two-party responsibility—just as voters nationally obviously think a Republican President is necessary to keep a heavily Democratic Congress honest. And only with a Republican Governor can Virginia's voters prevent the Democrats from redrawing the state's congressional and legislative lines with an ACLUist's uninhibited glee.

Finally, there is this. Doug Wilder has campaigned as the heir apparent to the Robb/Baliles mantle. Virginia's prosperity has indeed bred contentment with Democratic Governors. But during their eight-year tenure, Virginia's budget has nearly doubled and Virginia's taxes have soared—five times under Gerald ("The Tax Governor") Baliles alone. What's more the current administration has practically defaulted on battling drugs.

Is this high-cost incompetence what Virginia's voters want more of; do they want to elevate a do-nothing Lieutenant Governor to the state's highest political post? Or do they want diligent, dependable, dutiful government conducted in their own best interests?

We think they want the latter. That is why, tomorrow, they should elect Marshall Coleman and his running-mates and other like-minded candidates around the state.