It is an open question as to whether it is justifiable to shunt additional public resources, or take special public measures, to bolster your downtown. There are currently at least a couple of proposed measures that would seem to work toward that end:
1. Sam Hieb raises questions about the unanimous council vote to seek federal stimulus money for the proposed downtown hotel. Even without considering the ethics of accepting misbegotten stimulus money, I would also question the wisdom of using governmental mechanisms to add more hotel capacity to our city when, only a couple of hours prior, a representative of the local hotel industry was whining before our city council. He urged approval of the aquatic center to bolster the local hospitality industry because of decreased business, and because of the addition of ten new hotels in the city within the past year. Apparently increased competition and a contracted economy are taking their toll on the local hotel/motel business.
Are supporting the downtown, and accepting stimulus money, of such compelling urgency that we should make decisions that defy plain economic sense?
2. A proposal to add new parking deck capacity downtown, I believe, has previously been talked up by Robbie Perkins. The fact that he may be in favor does not make the proposal inherently wrongheaded. If the deck will pay for itself in the long run, then it might be worth pursuing.
3. We learn that T. Diane Bellamy-Small is consulting with Perkins about the possibility of a new youth center downtown in the old YWCA building. I think this is a very bad idea that would undermine the desire to hold the line on increased municipal spending. And I doubt it will add anything positive to the downtown community. We need to be wary of any horse-trading that may occur within the Melderec con Simkins faction to make this happen.
Perhaps, this deal between Perkins and DBS accounts for DBS' support for the swim center? A little Chicago play for pay in Greensboro?
Posted by: Stormy | December 19, 2009 at 04:36 PM
I don't know, Stormy, but it is an interesting hypothesis, especially since the interaction Yes!Weekly reported occurred on the very same night the aquatic center bill passed.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 19, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Believe me, TDB-S is seeking a quid pro quo from Robbie Perkins. Perkins got B-S to vote for the swim center. YES! Weekly had the quote from B-S..."now you do something for me."
The idea of a youth center runs counter to DGI's longterm goal of tearing down the old YWCA and expanding Festival Park. I believe DGI has designs on extending Festival Park from where the old YWCA now sits to across Church Street, turning Church into a boulevard of sorts. Despite her help with Perkins, I don't think B-S is going to get what she wants.
Posted by: Doc Alexander | December 19, 2009 at 04:45 PM
Is DBS so lacking in wisdom to make such a deal without a having a firm agreement in hand in advance? Otherwise, she may be very disappointed as Doc indicates, but who said she had any political savvy.
Posted by: Stormy | December 19, 2009 at 06:04 PM
Doc, thanks for some enlightening comments.
Stormy, I think she voted for the aquatic center, in spite of misgivings she had expressed, in part because it is located within her district. It would take a lot of integrity for a council member to vote against bringing such a major investment to their own district. So I do not know if there was a quid pro quo as of yet.
But clearly she will be working on an ongoing basis with Perkins, who is leading the Melderec con Simkins gang, on a long series of votes over the next two years. There is still plenty of time for that type of thing.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 19, 2009 at 06:40 PM
Even though the swim center is in her district, what benefit does it bring to her constituents? Clearly, as we have discussed, the swim center advocates were few of her district residents. And, what benefit in general does the Coliseum Complex have to the people in her district? I just don't see any major investment in her district helping the people of that district, so I do not see any display of integrity involved here.
Posted by: Stormy | December 19, 2009 at 07:51 PM
The YWCA has a swimming pool.
It would take business away from the Aquatic Center.
Posted by: Abner Doon | December 19, 2009 at 08:22 PM
Good point, Abner. There would be a certain amount of redundancy in purchasing two facilities with indoor pools simultaneously.
Stormy, I agree that any benefit the aquatic center will have for the people of her district is difficult to demonstrate. It is a big investment within her district boundaries, but probably will not benefit her constituents in a major way.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 19, 2009 at 08:32 PM
Joe,if this idea of purchasing the ywca gets momentum I do recall at a past council meeting where zack matheny was against purchasing this property and the price tag too high.let's see if zack matheny still feels the samw way now that he is in bed with the trebic cartel and simkins pac. It was also laughable to hear zack matheny at tuesdays council meeting talk about being conservative.
Posted by: triadwatch | December 19, 2009 at 08:42 PM
I suppose we shall see, Keith. When you say "now that he is in bed with the trebic cartel and simkins pac", it implies there has been a period when he was not. Although he made a couple of votes to break with the PAC, and confronted Goldie Wells on one or two occasions, overall his record during his first two years was with the Melderec con Simkins majority.
He managed to convince some people he had changed, just in time for the election; but the events of the last week have cleared up those misconceptions.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 19, 2009 at 09:43 PM
"He managed to convince some people he had changed, just in time for the election; but the events of the last week have cleared up those misconceptions."
THere is also another secret that zack matheny needs to come clean on , and hopefully he will say what it is for all to know.
Posted by: triadwatch | December 19, 2009 at 09:58 PM
this is from a editorial in news & record on september 23, 2009
"The location makes it an obvious target for expanding city recreational services. The YWCA tract is surrounded by the city-owned Historical Museum, Central Library, the Greensboro Cultural Center and Festival Park. But as Councilman Zack Matheny observed, the price would have to be reasonable. And nearly $3 million doesn't fit that bill, especially considering that the city already has shelled out big money to purchase property on High Point Road, near the coliseum."
It would be interesting to see what reasonable is to the councilman now after what transpired on the "BIG SWIM" vote.
Posted by: triadwatch | December 19, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I agree with all you are saying, Keith. I appreciate your providing that interesting excerpt from the September editorial.
Of course, now we are paying for the property at the Coliseum, as well as the aquatic center. It seems some might think the YWCA might be a bit too much after all the other profligacy the Melderec con Simkins folks have demonstrated on behalf of the swim community, the hospitality industry and the real estate development industry.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 20, 2009 at 08:02 AM
Didn't you just love the editorial in the News & Record this morning on the swim center?
Allen Johnson/John Robinson/et al states, "Yes, some voters feel they were duped."
Gosh, ya think?
It is amazing what the N-R will tolerate in their quest to bow and scrape at the feet of the Perkins/Melvin crowd.
Gutless. Shameless. Lacking in integrity or honesty.
In other words, just another Sunday opinion page in the sorriest excuse for a daily newspaper in America.
Posted by: Doc Alexander | December 20, 2009 at 04:35 PM
Doc,
Tell the two village idiots that, no, people do not feel they were duped. The truth is that they were. No one has to "feel" it, it is reality. The same corrupt fraud happened in the U.S. Capitol this weekend. There seems to be a pandemic of political corruption going around right now in this country that is making all Americans very ill.
Posted by: Stormy | December 20, 2009 at 04:53 PM
Why don't the other Senators back out of supporting the health care bill until they get paid off too? Why should Nebraska be the only one to get something out of it? Hagen should say she is wavering until the Dem's pony up a little something something for NC.
Posted by: Arch Stanton | December 20, 2009 at 05:11 PM
Doc, the editorial was very interesting for those of us who have been following the issue. Yes, the citizens were duped from a number of perspectives.
Stormy, you are right. There is no shortage of unethical behavior to which we can point.
Arch, Kay Hagan was too eager to bring us more socialism to be in a position to bring the bacon home for our state.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 20, 2009 at 05:39 PM
I don't think the Simkins Pac endorsed TDBS in our last election.
I am concerned that we have federal dollars available and the City has elected not to be more proactive in developing projects that will be most beneficial in the areas it is intended for. Instead, we get some group that blows in and proclaims that if we give them the money they will build something we really have no need of. And it kills me when I hear people say we may not need it now but we will in the future. I brought a back scratcher 12 years ago and to date still haven't used it.
Posted by: Vivi | December 20, 2009 at 07:56 PM
You are correct, Vivi, that the Simkins PAC did not endorse TDBS in the last election. She votes with that faction, however.
Your point is well taken about pushing unneeded projects. We ought not do that, even though it may feel good to do so.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 20, 2009 at 08:49 PM