City Libraries, Hotels, Power Groups and Points in Between

We learn in today's News and Record that Guilford County is threatening to cut off its library funding previously provided to the city of Greensboro.

If this happens, it would not hurt my feelings if the city were to begin charging for use of the libraries for any person who lives outside the city limits.  While it would be somewhat of an administrative challenge for library staff, it would be eminently justified.

The county has a financial mess on its hands waiting to happen; and the mess is entirely of its own doing.  Most of our county commissioners voted to place all those expensive bonds on the 2008 primary ballot-- especially the $400 million school bonds.  All that bond debt is now the commissioners' headache.

Similarly, we have been aware for years of the profligate manner in which the county schools administration was expending bond monies on school construction; but the school board and the county board of commissioners did almost nothing to stop it.  The fiscal problems they are facing will be their own fault. 

We have had local units of government attempting to divest themselves of certain parks.  But meanwhile, the usual forces continue to fan the flames of bond spending and annexation, even when we seemingly cannot handle what we already have.

One of those "usual forces" is the Greensboro Partnership, of which the local chamber of commerce and Action Greensboro are part.  Action Greensboro has been helping fund and promote the various bond campaigns, and even broke the law last year to help get the bonds passed.  The taxpayer is left holding the bag.

Bubba posted an interesting item about a group in Arizona that is taking the local Chamber of Commerce to task for having become part of the problem.  We could use that type of effort in Greensboro.

In any event, the latest product of the various wrongheaded forces in the city of Greensboro is the downtown hotel project.  Here are some important pieces of information and questions to keep in mind:

1. As I have noted previously, if Skip Alston is the broker for the land transaction, then the matter is a major conflict of interest for all the Simkins endorsees on the city council-- Perkins, Vaughan, Kee, Matheny and Wade. 

2. The Ole Asheboro Association would continue to be a major player, and hold equity in the hotel, even though it would no longer be located in Ole Asheboro.  Does this mean we have to give the Fisher Park, College Hill and Westerwood associations, or other east Greensboro associations, an equity position in the hotel also, as a matter of basic fairness?  Depending on how the deal is done, there is a possibility that one or more owners may not have any real equity at risk in the project.  Why should the Ole Asheboro association have stock in the project if it is not to be located in its neighborhood, and it is to be 100% public funded? 

3. There is no credible research demonstrating how much business this hotel would attract, and how viable it would be.

4. Oodles of taxpayer money are being used to build a hotel that would be competing with other hotels in Greensboro.  The hotel association made a pathetic plea before the city council in support of the aquatic center recently.  Its representative claimed local hotels are losing business because of the contracting local economy; and suggested there are too many new hotels in the area now.

5. The hotel is planned in conjunction with a parking deck that would be paid for by taxpayers.  But we need to know whether a deck in this location would pay for itself with parking fees.

6. The hotel at the "old" location would enjoy a five-year tax exemption estimated at more than $300,000 per year.  The new location would apparently not enjoy this benefit, therefore making its path to profitability more steep.

7. Projects funded with federal stimulus funds are supposed to be "shovel ready".  It is difficult to argue that a project is shovel-ready when the planned location is changed at the drop of a hat.

8. City staff apparently opposes the project, which suggests to me it must be pretty risky.

9. Is there somehow a desire to have the hotel be close in proximity to Skip and Earl's new museum?

10. I am told that Nettie Coad is a leader in the Ole Asheboro group, but also serves on the Redevelopment Commission which voted in favor of the project.  If that is true, would it represent a conflict?

11. What is the Ole Asheboro neighborhood now supposed to gain from this project, and how is that supposed to happen?

Even if the usual power groups align in favor of this project, it would not make it right.  Look at what their efforts did to Guilford County, which now seems unable to pay even its share of library expenses.

Comments

[Abner Doon]

Has anyone heard if Bridget Chisholms Soulsville project in Memphis has paid its past due bills?

[Joe Guarino]

That's a great question, Abner. (Ms. Chisholm is one of the principals/movers for the hotel project).

[Ed Cone]

One problem with charging people for library access is that doing so would cost the library its state funding, so any such program would have to raise $300k (current state funding level) to break even.

Another problem is that charging would deny access to some people and undercut the mission of a public library -- which is why the county ought to do the right thing and provide adequate funds.

Good points on the hotel and Ole Asheboro's participation, although I think the Civil Rights museum belongs to all of us, not just Skip and Earl, and that's a good thing.

[Joe Guarino]

Ed, I appreciate your pointing out the state funding issue. It would seem that needs to be considered as part of any decision-making that takes place. But it seems awfully unjust that the city's taxpayers should have to subsidize library service for those who don't pay their share. (The same principle holds true for city parks and rec facilities, BTW).

[Roch101]

"Is there somehow a desire to have the hotel be close in proximity to Skip and Earl's new museum?" -- Joe

Why, Joe, why? Amidst an otherwise thoughtful analysis, I am just wondering, do you think it is funny when you pull stuff like this or do you think that some of your readers are just dumb enough to fall for your deceptions?

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, there is no deception. It is a simple question, of which we should be unafraid.

One of the problems we have in Greensboro, Roch, is that we have had a lot of manipulation that takes place behind the scenes. That diminishes trust, and inevitably causes questions to be raised in people's minds about lots of things.

[Ryan Shell]

I remember highlighting several months ago the fact that the City needs a guarantee from the County - not just the assumption that the money will come.

[Joe Guarino]

Ryan, the county has a huge problem on its hands. Interestingly, the city of Greensboro has access to huge amounts of revenue that the county may not enjoy. As we have learned from Mike Baron, selling water can be a huge profit center for municipalities. The county does not have that revenue stream.

[Roch101]

It is not the question that is deceptive, Joe, it is its premise: i.e. "Skip and Earl's new museum."

[Ken Hill]

Is their museum deceptive?

[Abner Doon]

It makes no sense to place the most expensive hotel in Greensboro near a museum that won't necessarily attract clientele of an income stratum to support it.

The real sin is the socialistic methods suggested. If the “state” provides funding for an enterprise that will remove profit from a set of pre-existing businesses to be redistributed to those receiving subsidies…

What is being proposed is something other than what is supposed to happen in a capitalistic democracy.

[bob]

HOW ABOUT A CITY INCOME TAX TO BE COLLECTED BY THE EMPLOYERS ?????? IF THEY PAY WORKERS ON A CONTRACT BASIS THE TAX WOULD BE APPLIED ON THE LABOR PORTION......

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, Skip and Earl were the founders, by my recollection, and they remained on the board in spite of strong suggestions that they be removed.

Ken, that is the ultimate question. At one time, it was very controversial, and folks were concerned about the way monies were being handled. Then in 2007 the Melderec con Simkins folks got behind it, and the city has been funding it.

Abner, great comment. I agree.

Bob, I don't think a city income tax would be a good idea. Very few cities nationwide do this, as far as I know, and it would place us at even more of a competitive disadvantage for attracting employers than the tax disadvantage we already have.

[Bubba]

"Roch, Skip and Earl were the founders, by my recollection, and they remained on the board in spite of strong suggestions that they be removed."

Skip and Earl are the main reasons that the museum wasn't fully funded and built years ago.

It is the Skip and Earl Ego Trip Museum now, when it should have been the Civil Rights Museum and it should have been operational long before now.

[Glenn Jordan]

"There is no credible research demonstrating how much business this hotel would attract, and how viable it would be."

That's the red flag for me. In a little over 10 years, at least three luxury hotels (Grandover, O'Henry and Proximity) have opened in Greensboro. They joined the Sheraton downtown, Four Seasons and a couple of nice hotels around PTI. While I know very little about the hotel business, that seems to be a fair number for a city like Greensboro. Is there a saturation point? Where's the model to show how a downtown luxury hotel will compete with luxury hotels in other parts of town?

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, we need to remember that A&T was brought in at one point to give the museum an air of respectability. But then we found out about all the corruption at A&T.

Glenn, I agree. I keep on thinking about that hotel association spokesman telling the city council how bad things were for the members of his group, and that was why the aquatic center was needed. I just can't get forget that.

It just astonishes that a proposal like this could be made after those representations were made by the designated representative for the local industry-- before the city council-- only a couple of short weeks ago.

[Abner Doon]

An out of town general contractor gets the gig for the hotel, hires un-reported local sub-contractors to do the work.

Think about it.

Ever seen a list of the local sub-contractors for all the schools, roads, libraries etc...

You havn't because it doesn't exist.

The folkes who get to build it walk with profit whether it succeeds or fails.

So will Bridget Chisolm

Coordinated redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to the coordinators and their friends.

[Joe Guarino]

We need to be concerned about the possibility of all these things, Abner.

Council members need to vote this down. They need to be very skeptical. When a proposal doesn't feel right, they ought not allow themselves to be compelled to go along with it.

[Roch101]

"Roch, Skip and Earl were the founders, by my recollection, and they remained on the board in spite of strong suggestions that they be removed." -- Joe

What do you mean "remained on the board?" Are they on the board or not?

[Joe Guarino]

I checked the website, Roch. It indicates Skip is chairman of the board, and Earl is vice chairman.

Henry Isaacson sits on the board as well.

I remember a few years ago the state auditor's office released an uncomplimentary statement or report about the organization's activities.

[Roch101]

You are correct Joe. I thought that they had, indeed, stepped down from the board. I apologize for not having my facts straight.

[Joe Guarino]

I did not know, Roch, that Skip and Earl were still chair and vice chair; although I was reasonably certain they still served on the board. It is interesting to see how their leadership of the board has not been discussed very openly over the last couple of years.

[Arch Stanton]

Is there a way to get a full accounting of where all the money they have received has gone? They could have built 3 museums with the money that they've received and squandered.

[Joe Guarino]

Arch, John Hammer was asked the same question in this week's Rhino. I think his response was that getting this type of information is not as easy as it may seem. But as I noted above, the state auditor's office blew the whistle a few years ago.

[Sue]

Joe wrote, "I remember a few years ago the state auditor's office released an uncomplimentary statement or report about the organization's activities."

And then again, Joe wrote, "But as I noted above, the state auditor's office blew the whistle a few years ago."

All the museum's audits and 990s and other documentation are filed. When the museum decided to meet Smithsonian requirements, the cost went up (and more money was raised). When the unforeseen basement flooding was discovered, it set the museum's opening back a long while (and required more money to fix - anyone doing a renovation has faced similar). Both A&T and other Triad Foundations (Z. Smith Reynolds, for one; Weaver Foundation for another) have gotten behind the museum and have done due diligence.

Where's the beef behind your financial impropriety accusation (and those from your commenters)? What whistle did the state auditor 'blow' and have the questions raised at the time been resolved (repeatedly)?

Repeating something doesn't make it true (not even 3 times). I'd like to see a link to your documentation that shows unresolved financial inconsistencies, please.

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, I will not be providing any links because this is not part of my original post.

We need to consider several things, however.

First, the history of the museum antedates the decision to "go Smithsonian". There was a history before that point that aroused distrust among some segments of the community. I do not have a specific recollection of that history, and had not blogged about it a lot previously.

Second, I do seem to remember that the people had previously rejected a bond issue for the museum at least once at the polls.

Third, I had heard through the grapevine that support for the museum was one of the things the Simkins PAC was concentrating on during its 2007 interviews with city council candidates. And the council did subsequently fund the museum during the ensuing two years.

The museum is a done deal at this point, and it appears it will be "professionally done". However, questions linger in the eyes of some citizens; and John Hammer just this past week expressed difficulty with getting certain information regarding this non-profit organization, and all its previous dealings dating back to the inception.

The question, for purposes of this post, is whether there was a motivation to move the proposed hotel closer to the museum. I think it is a legitimate question, to which I do not know the answer.

[Sue]

Seeing's as you prefer to sling accusations rather than cite references (and thereby perpetuate what I believe to be falsehoods), I suppose that's your M.O. However, do you have an issue with moving the hotel closer to ALL the center city happenings, growth and development that have been achieved over the past few years?

There's no big hotel south of Market Street and still in walking distance of downtown attractions. Would any south-of-Market location generated this sort of innuendo-filled question?

BTW, I'm not convinced this particular partnership is truly public/private and also have many questions. However, moving the hotel closer to the center of city isn't one of them.

[triadwatch]

let's not also forget about the the boondoggle up in roanoke rapids where they have a tax payer funded theatre sitting empty as we speak which was discussed a lot by the locke foundation. I bring this up because a commentor at news and record on the hotel reminded us of this, great point by the commentor.

[Roch101]

"Sue, I will not be providing any links because this is not part of my original post." -- Joe

LOL!

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, I think Hammer had written this week that the folks at Action Greensboro now want a parking garage near their offices; and this hotel/parking garage combination would apparently provide that.

Meanwhile, Sam Hieb is raising the question as to whether Skip Alston's support of the aquatic center at the county level is going to depend on the city delivering on this hotel.

More warning bells are ringing, in addition to the many that have already rung.

Keith, yes, this hotel is another boonddoggle waiting to happen. But if the Melderec forces are beginning to align in its favor, together with the News and Record, then it is all a matter of how Zack Matheny and Nancy Vaughan will vote. Once again, all eyes will be on Vaughan and Matheny.

[Sue]

Joe wrote, "Sue, I think Hammer had written this week that the folks at Action Greensboro now want a parking garage near their offices; and this hotel/parking garage combination would apparently provide that."

Do you have ANY facts behind that? Any citation? Any documents? A source? A quotation? Joe, you've got to stop slinging accusations that aren't backed up by more than "Hammer wrote" without any citations of his own. If Mr. Hammer has documents or evidence, perhaps he can share it.

This sort of unfounded accusation-writing hardly fits into your proposed ethical framework, unless your ethics apply only to others and not to yourself.

[spyderbonez]

Here's Sue a link.

http://www.ncauditor.net/EPSWeb/Reports/GranteeAuditReviews/GRA-2006-0007.pdf

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, Hammer has been writing about local politics long before I entered the blogging scene. And for him, it is a vocation and his primary business, whereas for me, it is a hobby. I would not reflexively diminish what he says. Years ago, there were perceived problems. When the museum "went Smithsonian", and A&T got involved, we were to believe that everything was now OK.

But Skip and Earl are still chair and co-chair.

[Brandon Burgess]

"Sue, I think Hammer had written this week that the folks at Action Greensboro now want..."

Sue, I don't understand, are you asking if Joe has proof of what Hammer wrote?

[Brandon Burgess]

Sue, Jeff, it seems you are attacking Joe for referencing what Hammer wrote. Get your act together if you want your opinions to be given serious consideration

[Bubba]

"Get your act together if you want your opinions to be given serious consideration."

Ah, but when you're part of the local elite Self Appointed Privileged Society, you're exempt from having to meet that standard.

Didn't you know that?

[Brandon Burgess]

I just thinks it's hilarious that just a few weeks ago, Sue commented on this blog that she rarely comments or blogs anymore because of "knee jerk" reactions to her posts, but when it's her who is in the wrong it's just "eh, whatever, made a mistake".

If it were me or Bubba, we would be "typical white male chauvinist elitist jerks".

The thing is, I actually enjoy her blog.

[Joe Guarino]

At Dr. Johnson's request, I am deleting any comments listed as NotDr.J. Please find a better pseudonym, or use your real name.

[Brandon Burgess]

A positive move Joe. I think posting as ourselves gives a lot more credibility to the discussion at hand. It's so much easier to belittle someone when your not using their real name or your own.

[Sue]

@spyderbonez - that letter you cited is from 2006 and all documentation addressing those issues was responded to and filed. The museum has passed all audits and rigorously maintains records, I believe.

@brandonburgess - while we're renovating the office, I've got time to blog-comment. The 'knee-jerk' commenter I referred to is merely one person and when he didn't pursue that constant post-comment nastiness, I continued to comment and ask questions and give my opinion, which is what I thought we did on blogs. I just ignore Bubba now.

@everyoneelse - it's not OK, IMO, to continue to quote unnamed sources and not cite any documents but sling accusations, like the "Action GSO wants a parking deck near its office" stuff. I would hope that Joe, who respects research and demands it and seeks it, would also hold himself to the same standard when accusing other groups of questionable motives rather than just foment anxiety and accusation on his blog.

We should be moving back into the office tomorrow - thanks for the forum to chat with you over this holiday/renovation break that I had. Although we don't agree, it's good to be able to talk to each other without shouting (mostly). See you on Twitter - @suepolinsky

Happy new year to all. May it be a good one for each of us and for the city that we all seem to care so much about.

[Brandon Burgess]

Sue I just feel your beef is with Hammer and not Joe but either way, I see where you're coming from. And I didn't mean to jump on you, but you seem to be able to take what you dish out so we're good.

I hope you do comment/post more often because frankly, I don't see eye to eye with you on much of anything and I like that. Happy New Year.

[Bubba]

Keep it up.

[Joseph Guarino]

At Bubba's request, I am altering or deleting any attempts in the threads at this blog to disclose his identity against his wishes.

[Roch101]

"At Dr. Johnson's request, I am deleting any comments listed as NotDr.J. Please find a better pseudonym, or use your real name."

Will do, Joe. Can you offer us any insight into what is disallowed? Is is just a matter of the right person complaining?

[Roch101]

Houston, we have a problem:

http://guarino.typepad.com/guarino/2009/07/convergeright-2009.html

[jw]

"At Dr. Johnson's request, I am deleting any comments listed as NotDr.J."

So you're SURE "NotDr.J." isn't a basketball player using his "real" name?

[Roch101]

Joe, Bubba insulted me, by name, from behind the anonymity of a pseudonym. I am requesting that you remove his comment.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I deleted Bubba's comment as you requested.

He has previously requested his identity not be revealed, and that should be reasonably well known. I will delete any comments that reveal his identity; or any others when I receive requests from people who may feel insulted.

It is an ongoing problem when commenters take shots, directly or indirectly, at each other (and/or at the blog host) instead of discussing the issue at hand. Folks should refrain from that type of behavior.

There can be a fine line between when people feel legitimately violated, and when they do not.

But this thread is getting a bit out of hand, so I am closing it to further comments. It is really getting pretty silly.

I don't enjoy dealing with this particular aspect of blogging, and wish people would conduct themselves better.

[cheripickr]

Now, now http://beingamomisgreat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/warner-image-mptvnet-grumpy-old-men-1993.png