Journal Star reporter Gary Panetta recycled his blog post of Sept. 2 (also see his follow-up post Sept. 3) as a print article on Sunday. He thinks the Block the Bonds group is “nitpicking and making much over nothing much at all and potentially mucking up a project that could turn out to be a real turning point for the city’s art scene.” I’ll let my comments on the two blog posts stand as my response to his article. I’ve reprinted them below the jump for archival purposes.
Me:
Gary,
You said, “IMAX seemed like the perfect solution years ago when the museum idea first surfaced, but now it’s 2010 and things have changed.”
When the museum idea first surfaced, an IMAX was not being considered. It only started being considered in earnest in 2007. It wasn’t until 2008-9 during the run-up to the referendum that the museum group started promising that we would get an IMAX if the referendum passed. So your characterization of the IMAX bait-and-switch is inaccurate.
You also say, “That liability was already taken on when voters OK’d last year’s referendum. A public project of this size by definition requires public sharing of the risk.”
The only problem is, that is not what the voters were told in April 2009. They were told, and I quote, “If the annual payment cannot be met with the sales tax collection, the bond holders bear the burden, not Peoria County or the tax payers.” No one from the county or the museum group said anything about “public sharing of the risk.” On the contrary, the museum group and county took great pains to show how the museum will run in the black (based in large part on the fact we’d have an IMAX and all its brand power), spur economic development (remember the Bradley professors?), and not put the taxpayers at risk if the rosy predictions did not pan out.
If what you’re saying in your column now had been published before the referendum — if your vision of risk-sharing and nonchalance toward having an IMAX had been promoted by the museum group and the County back then — the referendum never would have passed.
Gary:
I simply can’t get past the fact that a vote was already held on this matter — and that the public got to hear repeatedly why opponents of the new museum thought the whole thing will turn into a financial disaster. They voted the thing anyway.
My views also are colored by the fact that I also simply find the whole “bait-and-switch” argument hard-to-swallow. In any case, here is C.J. (I should add that C.J. is mistaken about the IMAX proposal; I interviewed Lakeview Museum’s Jim Richerson back in March 2001 — even then he was talking about an IMAX theater.)
Me:
Gary — Thanks for posting my comment. I couldn’t find your interview of Richerson in the Journal Star archives. When was that published?
Upon rereading my comment, I could have been clearer. Up until 2007, Lakeview was touting an “IMAX-like” theater. Sure, there was reference to maybe getting an actual IMAX, but that really wasn’t being seriously considered until the run-up to the referendum.
For example, in 2006 on my blog, Kathleen Woith answered my readers’ questions. Here’s one of the questions with her answer:
“[Q:] Why not use IMAX instead of ‘off-brand’ IMAX. The name has appeal to greater numbers. What are plans to make the screen usable for special events or showing of first run movies?
“[A:] We are planning a giant screen theater that will provide an experience that you find when you visit an IMAX theater — or even better. (IMAX is like Xerox or Kleenex, it’s become a generic term for the giant screen experience.) Everyone knows that technology is changing by the day. The same goes for the theater industry. Digital projection is future of theaters. Currently IMAX theaters still use film. But we’re watching the industry as new developments unfold. We are visiting other theaters around the country to test the quality of other types of theaters. As we continue with the detailed design development for the theater and the rest of the museum, the architects are laying out a flexible theater that could be adapted to any brand we finally choose. We will wait till the last minute to choose the vendor. But we promise you will be just as thrilled whether it’s IMAX or an other brand.”
That was 9/15/2006. It wasn’t until a year later (9/13/2007) that the Journal Star reported:
“Museum officials are in Toronto today, negotiating with IMAX to hopefully bring the first digital giant screen theater to the Peoria Riverfront Museum .
“‘We can’t say we have an IMAX because we don’t have anything signed, but we are negotiating with them,’ said Lakeview Museum spokeswoman Kathleen Woith. ‘This would be the first digital IMAX theater for a museum . IMAX is developing this digital technology for us.’”
By the time the referendum came around, museum officials were telling residents at town hall meetings that the IMAX contract was sitting on their desks ready to be signed once the referendum passed.
Now, when museum officials tell you that IMAX is developing technology for Peoria’s museum and that they have a contract waiting to be signed, then after the vote say IMAX is incompatible with their mission and go back to their pre-2007 rhetoric, I call that a bait and switch.
Gary:
CJ — The interview I’m referring led to a story that ran March 25, 2001. You won’t find a mention of “IMAX” in the story, but I distinctly remember Jim Richerson talking about an IMAX theater on that occasion — and pretty much on every occasion he and I talked about the museum in the months and years since then.
My difficulty is that you are simply making inferences about people’s motivations.
What if IMAX has turned out not to be the best deal? What if there are better offers? Should this community be saddled with an IMAX regardless of what new information comes along?
What if a year later a general obligation bond looks like a more responsible choice than a revenue bond? Should we stick with the revenue bond because that’s what the country talked about doing on its website?
Basically: How much does it make sense to micro-manage public officials? Do we need to vote on everything they do?
These people are, after all, elected. If over time the community doesn’t like what they are doing, they will vote these folks out.
Me:
Gary,
Regarding the IMAX, define “better offers.” If they were able to find another giant screen theater with the brand power of IMAX, that would be a different story. Unfortunately, no such competing brand exists. The museum’s pro forma is based on IMAX brand power. Without an IMAX, the business plan falls apart — significantly fewer visitors and less revenue. Don’t just take my word for it, read the White Oaks report — the museum’s own consultant agrees. If you voted to invest $40M in a particular business plan and then subsequent to giving them your money they change the business plan so as to weaken it, wouldn’t you be upset? A bait and switch implies that something of lesser value was substituted for what was promised; that is indeed the case here.
Regarding the G.O. bonds, you asked “What if a year later a general obligation bond looks like a more responsible choice than a revenue bond?” In April 2009, revenue bonds were still more expensive than G.O. bonds, yet the County thought the business plan was risky enough to warrant the extra cost in order to protect taxpayers. What has changed since then? Has the business plan gotten less risky? No, it’s gotten even more risky. Promised private funding hasn’t materialized, the endowment was spent, and we may not have an IMAX now which will lower their revenue-generating capabilities. Taxpayers need more protection now, not less.
Finally, you ask, “How much does it make sense to micro-manage public officials? Do we need to vote on everything they do?” This isn’t micromanaging. The backdoor referendum is a part of the process. When the County Board voted in favor of these G. O. bonds, they simultaneously voted in favor of providing voters the option of a backdoor referendum.
C.J. readers, see my blog site for more on Panetta. Thanks
Panetta kills me, but he does make good soup……….
I find it ‘interesting’ that Panetta, like the rest of the museum supporters, are finding it more & more difficult to defend the current museum project based on it’s ‘merits.’
We do not hear anymore about the tremendous economic impact the museum will have on Peoria [County?]. There is little, if any, talk about the educational benefits of having our very own museum in town. What happened to preserving Peoria’s past…you know…history & stuff?
In other words, instead of developin g an argument based on the true benefits of [the] museum, Panetta [and the rest] resort to simple playground insults and snappy comebacks. Panetta’s response, much like Bateman’s editorial, was little better than a great big loud…
OH YEAH?…YOU’RE A POOPY HEAD!
Has Panerra received anything in the way of a severe head trauma lately…? Seems his short & long term memory isn’t what it used to be. I’ll bet he simply ‘forgot’ that these “public officials” he so admires, were the same group of ‘know-nothings’ who whole-heartedly supported projects like FireFlu, etc. But then…..who are we to question the day-to-day activities of our “elected” officials…?
I don’t think you should suspend civility because he disagrees with you. We are all entitled to our opinion.
He does make some good points.
“I simply can’t get past the fact that a vote was already held on this matter —”
I simply can’t get past the fact that the museum supporters keep drudging up this excuse. Less than 11% of the voters supported this tax… NOT the museum, the TAX. There has never been a vote on the museum itself that has passed. Has there?
It a white elephant, Gary! Just like so many other recent “must have” public projects. Get your head out.
My God! It has finally dawned on me. CJ is Gary Sandberg. He can argue a blind man into bifocals.
No really. What CJ said!
Ah yes, those pesky independent thinkers who act like Captain Von Trapp and his house being the only one in the neighborhood still flying the Austrian flag much to Herr Zeller’s chagrin.
The emperor still has no clothes.
Charlie:
The museum has had two organizations vote for it – the Peoria County Board and the Peoria City Council (not sure of the total # of votes but at least 2) and both votes passed with vast majorities. The petition drive is not directly about the museum but about the method used to fund it (general obligation bonds). While I hope that the petition drive has great success and the voters get an opportunity to vote on the issuing of bonds, the only way to “vote” on the museum is to have candidates run against those that supported the musuem and to vote them out of office.
It will be interesting to see if this issue were to get on the ballot and the organizers were successful what method would be used to fund the museum.
I would support a museum just not the plan that is currently in place. It is a poor plan with a great chance of failure.
Dist 150 Observer,
I don’t think anyone is suspending anything. Just like the rest of the PRM group, Panetta is condescending to a fault. Panetta writes, “…the public got to hear repeatedly why opponents of the new museum thought the whole thing will turn into a financial disaster.”
The public? The PRM group blocked or cut short every attempt to speak out against the museum. How much did PRM end up spending just to win the vote…by a measly 400 votes?!?
I dare you to name just one valid ‘point’ Panetta made in the above exchange. The fact that PRM is attempting to ‘hide’ their inability to obtain an IMAX contract by pretending to ‘shop around’ for a better deal is laughable…just like Panetta’s argument.
I see that Jim Richerson will be attending the next meeting of the Peoria Riverfront Association. That should present an interesting dialogue. I’d love to hear what excuses he tells this group who has more skin invested in the eventual success of this project that anyone else in the community. Some of these folks have been hanging on and waiting for a decade for this project to hopefully put some life into the downtown riverfront, only now to be told that after 10 years of planning and hundreds of thousands of $ spent on consultants, he’s not sure that an IMAX theater is what he wants. I hope they nail his hide to the wall for mis-leading them into supporting the sales tax referendum and then being confronted with the bait and switch reality that these Museum folks have no integrity and can not be trusted to actually deliver anything that they have touted to the community.
The Peoria Riverfront Museum is a stupid idea and will not generate much of anything good for the community. It’s more a monument to the grandiose egos of the special interests involved. There are far better projects to fund than this ridiculous, indefensible museum. Museums are mausoleums where bad art goes to die.
anp the vote was whether or not a 1/4 cent tax would be levied to pay for projects like the museum… it was sold as a tax to pay for the museum and 11% of the voters voted affirmative.
New Voice,
The PRM group did not in fact block every attempt. When I was president of the Neighborhood Alliance, we held a forum which allowed the various viewpoints to presented and discussed. I believe we were among the very few as I remember persons presenting any differing opinion were not even allowed to pass out literature. Specifically an event at Bradley University, an arena where all sides of an issue should have been presented, a county board member refused to allow a member of the opposition to participate, host a table, etc. Quite discouraging as members of the community need healthy debate on various sides of important issues and be allowed to make up their own minds. Hopefully these tactics, manipulations, etc. will be significant election issues in the various races over the next few years. Unfortunately memories are short and there is plenty of “suck up time” before even the nearest election. I am receiving literature currently from state incumbants citing fighting corruption as an issue for the campaign, yet failed to be an issue for the actual voting. Will officials be accountable? Unfortunately it becomes the job of the opposition to point out what the general public should have been paying attention to all along.
Paul,
Well said. You also bring up an interesting point….
I have never been able to figure out what the motivating factor has been that pushes our local politicians to support this [museum] project with such…enthusiasm. C.J. commented on a post some time ago; something about the council/board members who support this project with an almost religious like zeal.
I had written our esteemed council/board members off as simply being… naive, looking for a quick ‘econo-fix’, etc.
Now I begin to wonder.
The last thing I want to do is slander anyone by firing off accusations; leveling charges of corruption, etc. Considering the growing number of people who are beginning to ‘question’ the museum project, you would think the council/board would slow down, step back and reevaluate….
What do they do…? Well, to make a long story short, they hold a ground-breaking ceremony, hoping to strike oil!
I realize what the vote was “sold” as but the issue on the ballot did not say museum.
You are incorrect in your math – 50% plus one of those that voted on the issue voted in favor it so it passed. It is not fair to count those who did not vote since it is not possible to predict how they would have voted.
The elected officials of both Peoria County and the City of Peoria cast votes in favor of the museum (or agreements related to the museum). In our system of government that is the vote that counts. If you are unhappy with their decisions then don’t vote for them and support the candidate that runs against them (or be the candidate).
Just so you know, I am not in favor of the museum based on the current funding structure. I think that the group has delivered on very few of the promises that were made.