My mind is far from made up on this issue (I was the guy who as a Twin Cities Reader reporter publicized some less-than-savory connections in the theaters' original purchase-management deal). However, since the bulk of list posts have criticized the Council action, I'll play devil's advocate in the interest of debate.
Greg Luce writes: > Chalk this one up again to a nose-down failure to think more regionally for > the benefit of us all. CM Schiff's comment that it would be a "travesty" if > the Ordway was given a 'monopoly' over regional theater is absurd. We're > talking three theaters in Minneapolis (already controlled by one entity) and > one theater in St. Paul. Hardly a monopoly. No, it is. If you wanted to present a big theater show, where else would you play? You'd have to deal with the Ordway. True, Clear Channel's deal is an attempt to further its NATIONAL monopoly - but at least under the current setup, if they try to control local choice, non-CC acts can always scoot to the Ordway. > HTT/HTG will certainly be > able to maintain expensive Broadway hits and other plays and events in the > theater district, but that's something the Ordway's proposed Twin Cities > Theater Alliance could do just as well, if not better, plus be responsive to > calls to make the theater experience more accessible and available to all. I'm not sure I see the proof of either statement. The current HTG/HTT group puts on plenty of funky, non-Clear Channel shows. There's no more or less incentive to do that in the future. > Importantly, when you look at a side-by-side comparison of HTT/HTG and the > Ordway, HTT pales in comparison in any commitment toward involving youth, > low-income folks, and others in theater and educational programming. This is a significant point that Greg makes well. However, a side-by-side comparison of the FINANCES goes the other way. As a Minneapolis citizen, right now my #1 priority is getting the city out from under any unnecessary financial obligations. I would much rather sell the theaters to ANYONE than risk having to pay off the $22.25 million in current bond debt (plus another million-plus in looming capital expenses). For all its demerits as an artistic entity, Clear Channel has the muscle to pay off tens of million of dollars in city theater debt (it would guarantee to do so according to the HTG proposal). While the Ordway offers the city a $4 million-$7 million cash payment up front, I have far less confidence in a local nonprofit's ability to pay off the bulk of the theater bonds. I don't want to discount the artistic and community factors, but they are secondary. The baseline public purpose for buying the theaters was NOT artistic - it was to preserve landmarks and lure people downtown. In other words, they were economic development engines. If a deep-pocketed corporation would have bought and revived the theaters in 1989, we would've been thrilled. If we can find one today to take the debt and capital expenses off our hands, we should say yes (with the appropriate financial safeguards). In these risky, cash-strapped times, there are more important things to do with the city's borrowing capacity to manage that risk. David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
