Bond dilemmas
This week's column.
The Godfather of Soul wasn’t very impressed at the state of the dressing rooms in War Memorial Auditorium. And neither were we.
James Brown last performed at the auditorium during his “Living in America” concert tour in 2001. We last appeared there two weeks ago, for just a plain tour.
The 49-year-old facility looks its age, and then some. As dank and Spartan as they are, the dressing rooms are only the beginning.
Parts of ceilings are pocked with peeling plaster and brown circles from water leaks.
The air conditioning comes and goes.
The acoustics are bad.
The sight lines are bad.
You can hear the wind howl through a loading-dock door backstage.
And, well, you get the idea why Brown didn’t feel so good on July 6, 2001.
In fact, the Godfather got to see the building age before his eyes. He appeared 13 times at the Greensboro Coliseum Complex.
That’s why the facility is back for a return engagement of its own, in a bond referendum, after failing in 2006. There’s no disputing the big, fat price tag of the project, at $50 million. That makes it the single most expensive project among all of the Nov. 4 city bonds, which total $205 million.
But at least the auditorium gets to face voter scrutiny on its own, without the cover of other projects. In two other cases, high-profile items have been wedged into packages with numerous others, much in the way Congress tends to lard popular bills with juicy add-ons. The most glaring example is a $12 million regional swim center, a late addition to the Parks and Recreation package.
It’s hard to argue that such a facility wouldn’t be nice. Members of a very active and passionate local swim community point to the lack of adequate facilities for training and competition here.
It’s much harder to argue that the facility is a priority.
Even worse, it was added to the bonds at the 11th hour by City Councilman Mike Barber and was not among the projects originally recommended.
But it consumes more than half of the $20 million in parks bonds, which include upgrades to existing pools, recreation centers and athletic fields. The next single most expensive project in the parks bonds is $3 million to build a community center and maintenance facility at Barber Park.
Swim center proponents cite the economic benefits of swim competitions, a good point. But why not hold this discussion, openly and honestly, on the swim center alone, rather than lumped with other projects that may pass or fail based on this one, headline-grabbing item?
The downtown greenway also has a cushy home in the $134 million transportation bonds. The greenway has its share of skeptics, but its boosters point to the measurable success of similar pathways in other cities. Greenways actually do appear to increase property values and attract development.
Greenway proponents also argue that greenways ought to be considered transportation projects, in the same way that sidewalks and bike lanes are.
And the price tag, at $7 million for a phase of the overall $28 million initiative, seems to pale in comparison to the total $134 million earmarked for transportation. But why not let the item earn its own way by listing it separately?
Among other needs the transportation bonds would address: miles and miles of crucial improvements to streets and intersections. Topping that list is $26 million to fix the traffic nightmare at Horse Pen Creek Road, ground zero in the city for frayed nerves and cuss words from frazzled drivers.
There are other worthwhile projects, including improvements to High Point Road, and a variety of other hot spots. The voter’s dilemma: If you wanna fix Horse Pen Creek Road, well, you’ve gotta say yes to greenway funding, too.
It would seem to make more sense to separate big-ticket bond projects rather than fit them into categories that, frankly, sometimes seem arbitrary.
For instance, what makes a greenway more transportation than park, especially given that parks are a significant part of the equation?
Again, this isn’t to say that these projects don’t deserve voters’ support. Nor is it to say that the city shouldn’t invest in its future.
It is to say that if we learned anything from the county bonds in May, it’s that even projects viewed as politically unpopular can do just fine as standalone items if proponents make an effective case. The passage of the county jail bonds are concrete proof.
It’s too late for this election. But voters deserve clearer-cut options, especially during such an uncertain economy. As the Godfather of Soul might have sung, “Please, please, please” let major projects stand on their own, for better or for worse.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
As always, I enjoyed reading your editorial yesterday.
Your frustration with the "bundling" is understandable and probably shared by many people. Until recently, I did not understand it. However, at a P&R meeting last month, they showed a Master Plan that was put together over ten years ago. The items included in this bond are all included in that P&R master plan. I do not have a copy of the plan but, it is a public document.
Thank you for your objectivity and desire to fully understand the issues.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:10 PM
Sell the Coliseum complex.
I'm voting no again for all the bonds.
Posted on October 16, 2008 11:17 PM