News-Record.com

The article about the Canada Dry property should have included that one of the speakers in FAVOR of buying the land and MOVING the CONVENTION AND VISITORS CENTER to High Point Road is Ron Mack, Vice President of Retail Sales for the Koury Corp.
Mr. Mack is also chairman of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau.
Did you really see a dozen "movers and shakers" at the council briefing to support the proposals made by Matt Brown.

If not a dozen, then pretty close to it: Dick Grubar, Ron Mack, Kevin Green, Tom Martin, Marc Bush, the guy who runs the Koger center, plus a whole bunch of other blue blazers I couldn't quite put a name to. Heck, they had to set up an extra row of chairs to accommodate the crowd!

I didn't know that was Ron Mack's job. That's good to know. Thanks.

Here's an e-mail I received from Coliseum Director Matt Brown today about the Canada Dry story linked above.

*********
Margaret ? I want to express my disappointment in several aspects of today?s story on the City?s possible purchase of the Canada Dry property.

Firstly, I don?t know how I could be clearer when I stated in writing and verbally that ?To be CLEAR, the PRIMARY and initial phase of this project IS and SHOULD BE the immediate renovation of the ????.structure (the original 1932 brick building) ?would? (to) house the relocated City Official Visitors Welcome Center??. AND the CVB and Sports Commission offices?.

Nowhere in your article does it even mention the key component of this proposal which is the relocation of the CVB and Sports Commission offices. That?s the agency (CVB) that would be paying $160K a year in rent that makes the proposed ACC HOC a viable economic business model. The chairman of their board stated yesterday that their lease has expired and they prefer to be closer to the properties they sell (Coliseum and the Koury Convention Center), yet your article failed to make any mention of this key component. Once Phase One Renovation is completed, the annual rent received from the CVB would then be critical going forward with any further ACC HOC development subject of course to any additional funding from the state or private sources.

The renovation of this potentially beautiful structure for the purpose of housing the City?s chief sales and marketing agents (the CVB and Sports Commission staffs) can be the catalyst to spark revitalization on High Point Road and that is what residents of the Ardmore and Glenwood neighborhoods are desperately seeking (another critical facet of the presentation your article failed to address). Again, as I stated, how fortunate Greensboro Taxpayers are that we have $2M from the State to renovate this property as the initial phase of a POSSIBLE (subject again to future State funding support and or private donations) potential ACC HOC venue (which again is and has always been planned to include the City Visitor?s Welcome Center and CVB and Sports Commission offices). Our ACC HOC ad hoc committee has never proposed using City taxpayers dollars to fund the ACC HOC.

My second issue with your story is that three paragraphs were devoted to Councilman Philips and Mayor Holliday?s sensational comments regarding - in their thinking - potential for misappropriating state funds. You detailed their outrageous and appalling inferences that suggested using the State funding would be ?morally misappropriating? the State ACC HOC grant without noting my statement correcting their assertion. As I stated, the State Legislature approved the very same proposal we presented yesterday. The CVB, Sports Commission and Visitors Center is and has always been an integral part of the overall ACC HOC concept. The inclusion of the CVB/Sports Commission offices and Visitors Center was included in the presentations to State Legislative leaders (as well as identifying the proposed site of the Canada Dry property) and this presentation resulted in their awarding Greensboro $2M in state funds for this project. I realize you were only repeating Holliday?s and Philip?s comments, but I feel it was extremely unfair that my correction to their unfounded statement was not included.

I also want to take this opportunity, in the hope that the incorrect statement ?no one else including the ACC?s 12 universities and the private sector seem sold on the idea? will not be repeated in future N&R articles or editorials. As a matter of fact, all 12 ACC schools UNAMIOUSLY voiced their approval and support for both this proposed site and the concept of the ACC HOC, contrary to the erroneous comments made by Holliday and Phillips.

Thirdly, in the next to last paragraph, you wrote that the property has ?been on the market for about a year? when in fact your own newspaper archives can show your paper reported, I believe, over 10 years ago how the current owners first were going to ?develop? two restaurants, a parking garage and a hotel on this site. Then, when those elaborate plans failed, they then immediately placed the property up for sale and it has been on the market for again I believe at least 5 years and we even began negotiations with them over four years ago.

Wow ! Matt Brown says that the Mayor's and City Council member's statements were " outrageous and appalling". Most people would be fired for making such comments regarding their Bosses !
It's just another example of Matt forgeting that he is not a player but a simple City employee that serves at the citizens pleasure. The Council should demand an apology and then fire him. His ego is as big as his mouth.

Margaret,
Some of the extra chairs were used by members of the Cool Cities Group. They attended the briefing in support of the Mayor's Climate Agreement.

I hope the N&R will cover this important issue. It will be discussed at the June 5, Council Meeting. Over 400 mayors have signed-on to the agreement.

Most of the Council Members, as well as the City Manager and staff appeared to think the agreement to set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea for Greensboro.

Well, Matt Brown and I have had further discussions about my Canada Dry story:

***********************************

From: Margaret
To: Matt
Time: 2:09 p.m.

Hey, Matt. Thanks for the e-mail. I'll post your comments on the blog.

Lemme just make one point about something you wrote: Yesterday, Carl Essa said that the family only last year decided to sell the property to a third party. He said until that point, they had been looking to develop it themselves. So I guess technically they still would have owned it, though you are right that it would have been "available" in one sense of the word.

Would you also do me one favor? Given John's connection to this property, would you mind sending future questions (or concerns) to Ann Morris, our managing editor, instead of John? I don't know how he feels about this, but I do know that he and I haven't discussed anything pertaining to this deal, and that he doesn't discuss it with anyone here. I only request this because your emails are public record, and I don't want to give anyone the impression we're not handling this situation properly. I would feel better, at the very least.

Plus if you're looking to get me in trouble, Ann is much meaner.

Talk to you soon.

*********************************
From: Matt
To: Margaret
Time: 3:57 p.m.

That’s BullShit! The FOR SALE sign been up for so long it has mold on it. I met with Carl and the sellers Attorney 4-5 years ago. You heard Mitchell state that he had negotiations with Essa over a year ago and Ktichen through City staff also had earlier discussions. The property has been for sale to any developer and no one including the owner has found merit to build a hotel or any other tax base producing entity on it. In meantime did your response to my other concerns get cut off or do I need to read your blog to get the "Inside Scoop"?

************************************

To: Matt
From: Margaret
Time: 4:04 p.m.

Well, I could respond to each of your points. But I've come to learn that you feel passionately about these subjects, and nothing I could say would satisfy your concerns.

I'm by no means a shrinking violet, but I'd prefer if we could discuss this without cussing.

Got a nice e-mail from Matt Brown a few minutes ago:

"Agreed, I apologize."

I declare this matter between us closed - though hopefully he and I will have a discussion about the actual story tomorrow.

OK forget about MB. How about satisfying the readership's concerns? Who's right and who's wrong? 12 ACC Universitiies behind it or not? "Presold tenant at $160 grr or not? $2 Million or not? Seem important details to me.

Mick, that's a really good point. I tried to convey in my story on Wednesday (the one linked above) that those questions still don't have answers.

There are lots of opinions about all that stuff - whether private donors and the 12 ACC schools with pony up money for the HOC; whether the city could justify using $2 million from the state for the property despite only tentative plans for the HOC; whether that building on that land is the best place for the HOC and the city's visitors center.

Lots of opinions, lots of speculation, but not so much with the firm answers.

OK. But ... either the 12 ACC member universities are for it or not? In wrting anywhere? How is this opinion. MB states, rather matter of factly, that they are behind the project and location? Where's the wiggle room here? Yes or No? Do we have a built in tenant at $160,000? Is that in writing or a gentelman's agreement. Does either exist?

I would think that any price Gso pays for the property would include or reflect any hazardous material removal, remediation, etc. I guess that is the business end of this whole deal. Earn your keep City Council. Do something. Get some appraisals, estimates.... MOVE! This deal has been in the works for years. We all know that. How is it being shoved down anyone's throat? Sounds to me like someone finally actually came up with a plan to utilize the property. The Council doesnt appear to have done squat on the issue for 10 years! Just sit around and complain about someone else's ideas. How about one of your own? Got anything Council? Well, what do you know... a 70 year old manufacturing plant has environmental issues... who'd a thunk it! Resolve the issues please. Do something. Buy it or pass. Move on The ACC or pass. Get off your collective butts and do something... anything.

As an aside, how anyone can state there is "high interest" in a property that has been for sale for 8-10 years is at least humorous. Also, if it's worth $4.1 million why is the asking price 3.7? Realtors?! "Just gotta call and an offer is coming in on this property today or tomorrow." Yeah, right.

Somebody do something.

May has a good point, some of the assertions are either factually true or not.

You're right about that Roch. Here comes the "but!"

But in the case of the 12 ACC schools supporting the HOC, how do you define "support?"

Yes, verbal acknowledgement is a form of support, and I believe that's what Matt Brown is talking about. They have said they support the idea.

But what about other forms of "support," like universities agreeing to donate their trophies to the HOC, and university foundations agreeing to donate they money? That's what I inferred from Tom Phillips' comments Tuesday morning during the discussion - that he didn't see "support" in that form.

But Roch I do see your point. Maybe I've been doing this too long, and I only see nuance.

Margaret: Please stop debating this with that foul-mouthed Matt Brown. You are doing a good job but don't discuss this with Matt as he has no authority and is just an employee. Your worthy questions should be directed at policy makers and decision makers, not a City Dept. head. Take him out of the loop and let's hear from the Coliseum Commission and the City Council who have the authority an responsibility to make such decisions.
PS I apologize to you for having one of our City employees curse at you in an e-mail. He has already had to apologize to Keith and Tom ( his bosses) for shooting off at the mouth. He just can't help wanting to be a player.

No wonder Matt Brown got jacked up, beaten, and robbed a few years ago out on High Point Road.

What a jack@&& he is.

Before somebody cans the city manager I hope he takes Matt Brown out. He already cleaned house at the Police Department; there's a whole lot more doors on the Coliseum, but it sounds like this is a problem that Higgins Lock & Key could take care of with a Chief Wray move.

Calm down Matt, remember you are the highest paid City Employee and the City lives to just throw money down that money pit at the corner of Lee and Coliseum. Enjoy life, shut up, and leave the decision making to those who have the authority and the people skills to achieve something.

Hi Margaret,

You are correct, "support" is open to interpretation, but Brown also said that "all 12 ACC schools" unanimously voiced their "approval" for "this proposed site". That's not open to interpretation. It can be tested as valid:

1. Approved? Yes or no?
2. Unanimous? Yes or no?
3. That specific site? Yes or no?

My understanding is that the schools unanimously approved "the concept" of an ACC Hall of Champions. The vote wasn't specific to a site (which is why some people are talking about putting it downtown).

ummm. Why are they in such a hurry to build this hall of fame next to the coliseum after all this time? I think one reason has to do with a potential $150 million project downtown where the developer said he would provide space for the Hall of Champions in the privately funded development. There seems to be two competing proposals. Matt Brown and his group is fighting for the hall of fame to be built next to the coliseum while other want it downtown and in particularly a part of a potential massive hotel/entertainment/retail complex. They want to rush this because they know that the propsal next to the coliseum would call for tax dollars while the downtown proposal would be privately developed. Given the choice, most would prefer the downtown location for obviou reasons. The coliseum folks want to seal this deal before any downtown project materializes.

I think its a mistake to build it next to the coliseum. Thats all fine and dandy during the ACC tournament and NCAA games but the hall would see very little foot traffic. Besides the coliseum there arent that many nearby attractions. Downtown on the otherhand is a different story. A report was done that said downtown was a good location for the hall but the report didnt take into account the latest developments and the potential hotel/entertainment development. It just makes clear sense to build the hall of champions nearby other museums, restaurants and other entertainment attracions. This project belongs downtown. frankly its frustrating to see that some people in the community still have that 1970s-80s mentallity where urbann projects are built away from downtown. The Koury Center is the perfect example.

The hall of fame as a part of a potenial downtown plan would work better anyway because it would be within walking distance of a potentially planned high-rise hotel. That means more foot traffic into the museum. People visiting other attractions in this downtown development would also wander into the museum. There is a reason Charlotte leaders chose to build the NASCAR Hall of Fame uptown instead of next to Lowes Motor Speedway.

Kudos to Tom Phillips and Mayor Holliday for being the voices of reason. The City should NOT purchase the Canada Dry building until all contamination issues are completely resolved and a definite plan is in place for use of the building and/or land, and even then the purchase of this property should be seriously reviewed from all angles. How is it that the City can cough up more than $3 million for this purchase, yet it can't maintain its current buildings without a bond referendum?

Tim,

Be honest, is there anything you WOULDNT want downtown rather than somewhere else? What potential development downtown? It is my understanding that this "development" is just hope and rumor at this point in time.

However, I would love to get a private concern to pay for the development of the HOC. Do you really think "they" will do all of this w/o govt involvement (ie free)? That would be a nice change of pace.

I really dont care where they put the thing JUST DO SOMETHING.... ANYTHING. SOON. Either spot will work in one way or another. We're gonna screw around and the HOC will wind up in Charlotte next to the NASCAR building because "WE" couldnt make a decision.