Jump to content

Charlotte Arts Master Plan

cityboi

By cityboi
in Charlotte

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 629
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Durhamite Hamlet

Durhamite

Posted
Posted

I love the Jacob's Ladder and Quilt imagery of the African-American Cultural Center. It evokes the symbols of the struggle to overcome the unfair blockades that the democratic processes put up against them. The referendum tried to keep them down, where they could only be free in their rickety old church. But now they are free. Free to seek new shelter and glory on the richest street in the city.

Okay, maybe slavery doesn't parallel too well with an odd-year unbinding referendum.

We can go back to the party now :).

Yea, I noticed that about the African-American Cultural Center design. A few months ago, I saw an old lady in Warren County on PBS (last county in NC before crossing into VA on I-85 North) who still does the quilts. What a charming old town if ever have the chance to get there. If built in with that design, it'll probably provide a chilling effect given the it's parallel with the history of slavery.

The most chilling experience in my life was visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC. Everyone moves slowly; not a word is spoken; the flowers, letters, pictures, etc. The Lincoln Memorial and Reflecting pool in the background. When I lived in DC, I took one my patriotic pals there (First Gulf War Vet); it was midnight and he broke down like a baby.

Anyway, I digress, the arts package looks awesome and hopefully it all passes and the landswap deal is a success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ElricSeven Hamlet

ElricSeven

Posted
Posted

Um, that isn't what happened. I watched that very meeting when the baseball provision was added to the bonds. It was because a Mr. Bill James didn't want Parks Helms to sneakily use the park bonds to pay for a baseball stadium. If it was to keep baseball from that land forever, they would have added that wording.

If the wording doesn't say it, then that is not part of the contract. It is the reason that lawyers write fancy words in contracts, and why you can't just say it really meant something else.

That referrendum accomplished what Bill James wanted, which is that those county park bonds were off limits for paying for a baseball stadium. Once it passed, the Knights realized that unequivocably, there were no funds for a publicly funded baseball stadium. So they hired new people, and went to work in finding private investors. They have found them. All they are needing, now, is a lease to land uptown.

We can't extrapolate whatever we want from referendum results. Like, Mecklenburg county residents never want another school built in the county again, just because they voted down the last bond package for schools.

Also, in a republican democracy, there are times when things change, and other avenues are explored. In the case of the arena/baseball/arts, it no longee needed the new tax that was originally being sought from the state. So, it was reworked.

You're right, they were only concerned about a misuse of those funds. None of that money is going to be given to the ballpark, under the current plan it will only be used to pay for a park. It didn't say an 8 acre park at such-and-such a location in third ward. It would be foolish to limit government flexibility that way. Instead, the County can go ahead and evaluate the land swap deal from the basis of whether they are getting the same value in land received for that given up. As long as that is the situation, there was no violation of the letter or spirit of the referendum. Now if they monkey with the appraisal process to indirectly subsidize the building of the stadium, e.g., making it so that the land they get for the 8 acres they originally bought is worth less than those 8 acres, then there's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
uptownliving Town

uptownliving

Posted
Posted

That is because the Knights tried to get a baseball stadium put up there at that time, and the only way the county thought a bond package would be passed, which allowed them to purchase the 8 acre site, was to make it clear there would be no baseball involved. While the bond package did not specifically exclude what could happen to it in the future, I think it jades the public trust in supporting bond packages when the government turns around and uses them for purposes they were not intended for.

The county already owned the land when the $69M Parks Bond package came up for a vote in 2004. The Bond money is not being used to pay for the land, rather it is being used to plan, design, and implement the park. The bond money is not attached to a certain plot of land...they just used the words "Urban Park" The only stipulation is that the money can't be used for a professional baseball stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ElricSeven Hamlet

ElricSeven

Posted
Posted

The county already owned the land when the $69M Parks Bond package came up for a vote in 2004. The Bond money is not being used to pay for the land, rather it is being used to plan, design, and implement the park. The bond money is not attached to a certain plot of land...they just used the words "Urban Park" The only stipulation is that the money can't be used for a professional baseball stadium.

Then the deals aren't related at all. Completely safe territory. Even better. So why all the fuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

Um, that isn't what happened. I watched that very meeting when the baseball provision was added to the bonds. It was because a Mr. Bill James didn't want Parks Helms to sneakily use the park bonds to pay for a baseball stadium. If it was to keep baseball from that land forever, they would have added that wording.

That was the intent of the wording. The parks bonds were billed in part as putting an 8 acre park downtown, and a reflection the people did not want public money going to build a baseball stadium.

If the Knights want a ballpark downtown, let them do it like everyone else, purchase the land and build it. That won't take any complicated land deals at all and I am sure that if a zoning change is needed they would get it. The fact of the matter however this complicated land deal was conceived for the very purpose of using public money to subsidize a ballpark because they know that if it were put to a vote the public would not support it. It's more corporate welfare at the expense of the citizens using the excuse, "oh it will bring more life to downtown" when study after study of these things show exactly the opposite.

Dirty tricks such as this will jade the public against more needed projects in this city and we will find that publics works projects, which actually improve the downtown, instead of creating dead spaces like the Arena and Stadium have already done, are going to disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ElricSeven Hamlet

ElricSeven

Posted
Posted

That was the intent of the wording. The parks bonds were billed in part as putting an 8 acre park downtown, and a reflection the people did not want public money going to build a baseball stadium.

If the Knights want a ballpark downtown, let them do it like everyone else, purchase the land and build it. That won't take any complicated land deals at all and I am sure that if a zoning change is needed they would get it. The fact of the matter however this complicated land deal was conceived for the very purpose of using public money to subsidize a ballpark because they know that if it were put to a vote the public would not support it. It's more corporate welfare at the expense of the citizens using the excuse, "oh it will bring more life to downtown" when study after study of these things show exactly the opposite.

Dirty tricks such as this will jade the public against more needed projects in this city and we will find that publics works projects, which actually improve the downtown, instead of creating dead spaces like the Arena and Stadium have already done, are going to disappear.

Arguing "intent" of the wording beyond its plain meaning is a slippery path. Reading the language it is very clear to me the only requirement is that the money be used for "a" - note the very important indefinite article - park and not for a baseball park.

Now if you want to argue that other resources shouldn't be used, such as the currently owned 8 acres of land (not yet a park since the bond money hasn't been spent to develop it), then have at it. There's always a point to be made about curtailing public subsidization of private entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

Arguing "intent" of the wording beyond its plain meaning is a slippery path. Reading the language it is very clear to me the only requirement is that the money be used for "a" - note the very important indefinite article - park and not for a baseball park.

It is not a slippery path because we are talking about what the public believes and what they end up getting. I have already said there are no legal requirements that prevent them from doing what they propose, but that won't make any difference to angry voters next time something like this comes up and the people against it use this as an example on why you can't trust them to keep their word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ElricSeven Hamlet

ElricSeven

Posted
Posted

It is not a slippery path because we are talking about what the public believes and what they end up getting. I have already said there are no legal requirements that prevent them from doing what they propose, but that won't make any difference to angry voters next time something like this comes up and the people against it use this as an example on why you can't trust them to keep their word.

The problem here is that the only consistent unifying way to ensure correct communication is to read the wording of what you're voting for and taking the time to understand what it does and doesn't entail. The whole system collapses if people are allowed to loaf their way through diligence without putting in the time to read, research and understand what they're voting on and then later come back and say "but I thought you meant X, even though this says Y." Every contract, law, rule and regulation would be tossed back on forth based on what different people believe at the time it was made. The primary and overwhelming source of interpreting intent should, and is, the plain meaning of the wording.

I also think there's an assumption here that people didn't know what they voted for. I've never seen a factual basis for that assertion. It could be that you're assuming they're too dumb to know what they voted for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubone Megalopolis

dubone

Posted
Posted

But follow its parallel. The county intended to build schools, so it put out a school bond vote, which was defeated. That doesn't mean no schools should be built, it just means that the leaders should go back to the drawing board come up with a better plan. In the case of schools, a new smaller amount was then passed by the county commission to resolve the immediate school needs.

If the county board didn't want baseball to be built privately on that land, then they would not have voted to approve the county to continue to investigate the CCP's plan and landswap. It is as simple as that.

I voted for those bonds, but you can't apply the reasoning for your vote to apply to my reasoning. I voted because I wanted an urban park. The spirit of my vote is fulfilled even more by moving the park to a better location. We could put every decision to a vote, as the greeks did. But that isn't the system of government we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazeeboi Gigalopolis

krazeeboi

Posted
Posted

The most chilling experience in my life was visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC. Everyone moves slowly; not a word is spoken; the flowers, letters, pictures, etc. The Lincoln Memorial and Reflecting pool in the background. When I lived in DC, I took one my patriotic pals there (First Gulf War Vet); it was midnight and he broke down like a baby.

You are absolutely correct about this. When I was there about a month ago, we moved from the Lincoln Memorial, where the atmosphere was more lively and festive, to the Vietnam Memorial where the mood was the complete opposite: extremely somber, voices barely above a whisper. It's almost like you're at a funeral.

OK, back on topic. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubone Megalopolis

dubone

Posted
Posted

Hopefully he has been assured that it all will be fine with out an pressure. That or maybe he has come up with some ideas that would make it more palatable to the board of city commissioners. Perhaps he will use the extra 1% of car rental tax to pay for a part of the Landswap deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

My wallet feels heavier, because the increase of several hundred jobs paying over $100k/year is certain to boost my property value.

Maybe they will live in SC since you had this to say about the effects of these projects on downtown Charlotte. A place that is not that liveable doesn't lead to an increase in property values at least by my thinking.

Ok I shouldn't have drug up another post of yours, but it does highlight what might happen by government that has no problems with endless tax increases to pay for projects that have dubious value to most of the city. (and county)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atlrvr Metropolitan Area

atlrvr

Posted
Posted

I have no problem standing behind that statement. I've always said that the NASCAR HOF and minor league ballpark should be located outside downtown......the key was that they should accessible by mass transit.

However, the point of my post here as far as property values was the large number of extrememly high jobs created by Wachovia with their expanded tower that is linked to the arts package. I think properties in any middle to upper income neighborhood will benefit.....SC and Lake Norman included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
atlrvr Metropolitan Area

atlrvr

Posted
Posted

http://www.freelon.com/ <- Search all NC projects, the new African American Cultural Center should be at the bottom of the list.

Check out this new perspective of the AACC....it is how it will look from the Westin....it's also adds additional confirmation of the authenticity of the Wachovia rendering.

This also shows how the service entrance to the entire Wachovia complex will look.

Note - Looks like someone is driving the wrong way down college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.