Austinist: Better Know a Proposition: Prop. Four

Stew

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:03:54 -0600

All this "greater good" talk gives me the chills. The greater good or the common good are the worst talking points in the world, they mean whatever you want them to. -no to Communism, no to Props 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Anon

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:53:14 -0600

LMAO. You've got to love the grammar police when people typo. Do you really not have anything better to do? On that note, I'll side with you though; it is a hand out for some, but beneficial for others. Sometimes we have to take one on the chin for the greater good. Any grammatical erros grammar nazi?

Kevin Cox

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:14:49 -0600

So let me get this straight, You have a pro Prop 4. sign in your lawn, but you are actually against it? Or are you just against Zach Scott, but the rest of the people it benfits is fine? Sorry, you're stirring up more confusion for me. BTW, I live in the neighborhood you're talking about and I know a lot of people who want to see Zach Scott exapnd and that fully support Prop 4. The neighborhood associations aren;t always in the best interest of the neighborhood, they're usually more about the interests of the people who are on their boards. -Brian Simmons First of all Brian, the correct spellings are “expand” and "benefit". Also, you use an apostrophe instead of a semi-colon in aren’t. Second: I talked with the current President of your neighborhood Association and the past 2 presidents of your association. It is time for you to actually get involved with the Association and mount a coup d'etat against the leadership. I will vote for Prop. 4 holding my nose at the stench of the fat-cat give away that Zach Scott will receive. And before you say I hate theater and Zach. Scott I met my wife in 1984 when we were the Crachits in that year's "Christmas Carol" at, ta-dah, Zach. Scott. That was back when it was a real community theater.

seth

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:13:03 -0600

As someone else said earlier, Prop 4 is a handout for the Zach Scott company. Unlike so many of Austin's other grassroots arts organizations (Cinemaker Coop, Vortex Theater, Okay Mountain) Zach Scott is well-connected with City Council members and was able to hammer this earmark into the bond package at the last minute. It's frustrating that they're also well connected with private philanthropists who could foot the bill for this expansion. Seth

Stew

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:40:25 -0600

No to Prop 4. The cleverist argument: "How many Italians do I need to bring to Austin for y'all to open up an Italian-American Art Center?" -Austinite to Lee Leffingwell from Statesman The most realistic argument: "Voters need to keep in mind that these millions of dollars to build these facilities will be dwarfed by the year-after-year burden their operating costs will place on the City's annual budget." -seth on Austinist The dumbest argument: "these costs will be offset to a degree by increased hotel bed taxes from an increase in tourism." -Sudo on Austinist My argument: No one will come from out of town to a new Daugherty Art Center other than the few that already do. "Hispanic Heritage Centers" and "Asian-American History Museums" are state-sponsored racism. Like most everything else, art is a capitalist endeavour. If you can't make the cut, then it might be time to do it better or adopt a different career path.

M1EK

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:45:03 -0600

Sudo, Your long rambling comeback has unmanned me. I don't even understand what you said, but I'm sure glad you said it.

Rob

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:33:47 -0600

Fort Worth probably isn't a good example. Austin wishes they had the cultural prestige of Fort Worth. However, their taxpayers aren't on the hook for all the arts venues and museums (ever heard of the Kimbell?) Fort Worth is blessed with the Bass family who has decided to invest their wealth improving the arts in their community. Austin developed into what it is today because it was an affordable place to live for the creative community. Dallas has incredible arts facilities so why doesn't everyone move up there? Real artists don't need luxurious facilities to be creative.

Edward

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:04:13 -0600

Sudo, the arts and cultural organizations *should* be supported. The problem is, as I'm sure plenty of local independent artists and community organizations will tell you, that this proposition is misguided at best and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead voters. This proposition ignores the millions more dollars that will need to be spent and the parkland paved over to make the Zach Scott development usable. In addition, as I stated earlier, if Quentin, et al feel like subsidizing movie tickets then we should talk about subsidizing Austin Film Studio. There are plenty of small independent artists and cultural organizations that truly need money like this and could put it to use that would benefit all of austin, but this prop ignores these and instead gives hand outs to the usual suspects. Voting no on this prop is a vote *for* the true heart and soul of the austin art and culture community that will hopefully be recognized and better represented in a future proposition.

Sudo

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:34:46 -0600

M1EK - No, I didn't say that tourists come here for the theater scene, but that theater coupled with more of the cultural heritage facilities and museums help round out the picture of Austin as a destination. But since you specifically mention theater vs. music, you should go back and research Austin's music scene. Back in the '80s it was at the same point as today's theater scene, confined to a relatively small number of venues but still able to produce quality works that often garnered national attention. It took effort from the Austin city council in the form of hippy councilman Max Nofzinger to convince the local government and businesses that support of the arts would pay off in not only quality of life, but tourist revenue as well. It was with the support of the city council that Austin's music scene exploded into the beomoth you are so proud of today. I remember that a large percentage of people scoffed at the idea that government could do anything significant to encourge the local music scene, and thought that tax dollars directed to encouraging it's growth would be better spent building new roads or subsidizing office parks and manufactoring plants, and they ended up getting most of the money, leaving only a symbolic amount for music. Today, you can drive by these office parks and see them struggling, while Austin = Music in the minds of most of the nation.

Edward

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:48:42 -0600

Grape A, nice try with the false dichotomy of attempting to associate prop 4 opponents with condo supporters. Thanks, but try again. Not wanting to dedicate tax dollars and public park land to the dubiously conceived expansion of a *private* businesses (which Zach Scott is) is the exact opposite of being pro development. Do you actually know what the implications of prop 4 are or are just supporting it because it has been spun as the "creative community" proposition. Are you for the "patriot" act too? If you're patriotic you have to support it, right? If you did any kind of actual fact checking, you'd see the fact is this proposed hand out to Zach Scott to build a new 500 seat theater on public park land doesn't include any plans to facilitate parking for these 500 new patrons. It's criminal in my opinion that this isn't spelled out in the proposition as it will most certainly cost millions of more tax dollars for this and most likely literally turn a slice of austin park land into a parking garage. What's more, after the last legislature, the city can now grant public park land to private businesses for things exactly like this without a vote. That's thinking ahead. It is the schrewd move of the Karl Rove of Austin politics that has framed this prop as the "creative community" proposition and lumped in a few actual worthy causes in proposition that it is mostly a giant corporate handout and would ultimately cost the public much more in dollars and the loss of public park land than is spelled out. Any one that actually supports the idependent creative community of Austin should vote against the proposition until the city gets it priorities straight and gets "creative" to truly support the arts in Austin.

Grape Ape

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:10:06 -0600

Kevin Cox

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:47:41 -0600

Where did I say I hated Prop. 4. I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over for an answer Mr. Grape Ape. I mentioned that South Austin residents don't like Zach Scott plans for their neighborhood. The paticular Neighborhood Association I met with on 10/21 includes Del Curto. Look them up on the City Web site. They formed after condo developers moved into their neighbour hood. Did you even take the trouble to look at a map mr. so brave you hide behind a psuedonym? There is a Prop 4 sign in my front lawn, and no I'm not going to tell you where I live so you and you band of simians can egg, torch, or trash my house or terrorize my wife and daughter. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. There is a future for you at Faux News. Kevin Cox

Grape Ape

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:48:41 -0600

I'm guessing most of the Prop. 4 haters are also condo project supporters?

Kevin Cox

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:42:02 -0600

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&sa=N&resnum=0&q=zachary%20scott%20theater&tab=wl This is the Google Hybrid Map of Zach Scott and surrounding area. In the City Council meeting that approved Prop. 4 is language approving Zach Scott building a Multi-story parking garage with $20M in Private funds if the Prop. passes. Do you think Zach Scott will put it in their front lawn? No, they plan to build on the lakefront or get the City to give them the ball fields to the West and South. No South Austin Neighborhood Association endorses Prop. 4. Zach Scott should grow up and stop sucking on the taxpayers teat. They can get their millionaire/billionaire backers to pay for the new theater. And unless voters make sure that Zach is forced to build on their front lawn, Zach Scott will continue to suck up funding that could go to real grass roots arts organizations. You should read the fine print before you sign the contract. You should read the City Council transcripts before you vote for an item on a ballot. Hoping I have stirred up a hornet's nest, Kevin Cox (No, NOT the LeBare Caberet Kevin Cox)

Edward

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:39:16 -0600

Why the hell do our tax dollars need to subsidize the film industry? If quentin, linklater, rodriguez and crew feel like subsidizing my movie tickets then maybe we can talk, otherwise, seriously, do these guys really need a hand out? If the film industry doesn't appreciate Austin for the great town that it is without being bribed, screw 'em.

M1EK

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:08:32 -0600

The implication that tourists come here for the theatre scene seems unsupportable to me. They come for music, if anything in the arts millieuxeauxaeuieu; but we're not bonding for additional venues for SxSW this time, are we?...

theatregoer

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:34:16 -0600

This series and the education on upcoming bonds is cool. Thank you. All of these cultural institutions are worthy of ongoing funding, no question. However, I'm dismayed that the none of the funding on these proposed bonds has been appropriated or earmarked for smaller, more fledgling theatre spaces and the companies that produce non-mainstream work in them. Ultimately, a varied approach is what is going to help the city grow its theatres and creative output to sustain a creative economy on par with New York, Chicago or San Fran. I'd like to see the city fund some healthy competition to the Zach Scott in a serious way. I think the arts and audience would benefit.

Tarvin

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:07:52 -0600

What Austin needs is a good fiscal conservative leader. All the Council members seem to base their political fortunes on big projects and growth and changing Austin. I think there is a market out there for a politico who vows to do no more, or less, than is being done currently. But I'm not gonna run.

Sudo

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:04:51 -0600

Seth makes a valid point, but remember that these costs will be offset to a degree by increased hotel bed taxes from an increase in tourism. The proposed Mariott alone is estimated to bring the city $4 million annually in Hotel bed taxes once open. Plus, we all know that tourists like to spend money, creating more jobs and more sales tax revenues. Supporting the arts turns out to be not as expensive as you might think, and it makes the city a nicer place to live.

Tarvin

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:03:38 -0600

So why should the taxpayers subsidize the "film community?" Do they subsidize the "food industry community" with their taxes or the "veterinary workers" industry with their taxes? I think not. End the welfare.

aRK

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:32:37 -0600

Seth should move to Fort Worth. This is one of the most important props to pass. Austin's film community depends on this and the reason people live in Austin is to be a part of community that celebrates art. A community full of people who, unlike Seth here, care about keeping Austin from turning into every other boring American city.

seth

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:04:38 -0600

Voters need to keep in mind that these millions of dollars to build these facilities will be dwarfed by the year-after-year burden their operating costs will place on the City's annual budget. Just a normal Rec center costs Austin more than $450,000 per year in staffing, electricity, and maintenance. Taxpayers will spend the next decade paying off these bonds, but will spend the rest of their lives paying for their upkeep. Seth

Tarvin

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:50:11 -0600

When do we get a Czech or Swedish cultural center?

eliz. s.

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:32:12 -0600

"stand to benefit if it passes", I should have said.