The news this weekend, that the San Jose Repertory Theatre is looking for a $1 million bailout, brings up a lot of issues for debate and questions that need to be answered. Is the city constantly putting money into things that they don’t monitor? Why the shock and surprise of the city council on the financial problems of the theatre, one of the premier performing companies in the country? Has there really not been any improvement in communications with and within City Hall? Norcal redux, anyone?
How many times have we heard that the city is giving a subsidy to something that fails? I am all for helping needed businesses and arts institutions that enhance the cultural life of the city, but when is enough really enough? How do you maintain a smart business attitude about how public money is spent while providing for high quality arts and culture in the city?
I don’t understand the “surprise” at City Hall about the perilous financial condition of the Rep. Come on—where is the communication, people?! Where is your financial acumen? Did the Rep not disclose this information soon enough? Did the city staff not communicate to the council? It’s just another laughable incident that makes me roll my eyes. Things haven’t changed and maybe won’t change at City Hall until we have a new mayor who shakes things up.
Maybe something really drastic needs to be proposed before the city council votes on a bailout plan for the Rep. For one thing, the board should step up, take responsibility and raise part of the money themselves. There is a gigantic city asset and a lot of sweat and blood on the line. Those closest to the problem and most in-the-know have to do the heavy lifting. It’s worrying to see all the people jumping ship at the Rep—despite great performances and an excellent artistic director, Timothy Near. This will further test the ability of the board to cope with the situation and the ability of the city to deal with yet another crisis.
It’s time to take a cold, hard look at the Rep, and the other publicly-financed institutions and facilities that contribute to the quality of life in our city, and coldly gauge what they bring to San Jose and whether the public’s money is well spent. I hate to suggest such a seemingly harsh remedy, but the problem with the current city government is that they never quite know when to say “when.”
Single Gal, that’s just pure heresy… as citizens of this fair city, we must all roll over when it comes to pumping money into Downtown. Without the constant flow of our tax money, our artificial Downtown would dry up and blow away.
As I skimmed over the Merc this morning I saw an article that indicated the Council could be leaning towards giving the Rep the $1M bailout. I hope they don’t. I agree, enough is enough.
I was at that theater once. That was enough. At 6’-0” and around 200# I am not the biggest guy around, but I felt like a sardine in those seats and the amount of space between the rows is so narrow that I felt like I was going to lose my balance trying to get out to the aisle. I’ll never go back whether the Council votes to keep the Rep afloat or not.
Cindy is waiting for the results of her latest poll so she knows if she should vote for the $1 million or not. If the poll is favorable, look for arts support to be a new (and maybe temporary) platform in her campaign.
I’d be interested in knowing just what is putting the Rep in the hole—- production costs, salaries, low attendance? Although I enjoy the small venue, I wonder if the limited capacity is a reason for The Rep being in the red. Perhaps they need a good accountant.
Ditto #1 regarding parking, developers seems to be engulfing downtown property with little consideration for where people are to park. Downtown is crying for people and has been for years. Is the thought that people take the transit to access what is there? And what’s this I hear about possibly charging a limited fee on Sundays and other times that are currently free? I hear this is being considered to be fair to privately owned lots. So soon we will be paying to go to Sunday Mass, was bad enough to pay to go to church during the Jazz Festival. The ghost town is expanding.
Boy, all we hear these days is budget shortfall this, parks and pools that, and now the Rep.
There’s only one way out as far as I can tell.
Someone needs to ‘discover’ that the new city hall was built on Indian land.
We then convert city hall into an Indian casino and BAM!
– We’ve replaced a tax dollar sinkhole with a gi-nourmous tax dollar source.
– We get much needed nightlife – look at all the fun those people are having on the Cache Creek commercials!
– We get to outsource city management to Harrahs.
– City council meetings are adorned with Vegas style showgirls.
How much better could it get?!
This idea has legs – a veritable 7-7-7 on a luscious progressive slot.
#4: What, is Phaedra on vacation on the moon so she can’t be contacted to tell Cindy how to vote?
How much of our $$ went to build the Ugliest Building in North America that The Rep performs in? Was it a gift or a loan?
$4+ million for a third class car race, $1mil MORE for the rep; but not a penny to make up for the $100k lost from the Murky News to keep San Jose’s Jazz Festival the largest free jazz festival in North America?
It shows the value of lobbyists, or what the lack thereof brings.
John Michael Sobrato’s and Greg Avis’ comments in the Murky News went right to the heart of the matter.
Where does all the money go—high salaries for artisitc director and managing director; high-priced, name talent; junkets by management?? Someone needs to do an audit and find out where the money is spent.
Mark T,
try wieghtwatchers, exercise or light beer. Your BMI is too high; so you might not be around to post much if you don’t do something about it.
I say no to the subsidy, maybe a loan, but no subsidy. Running a non-profit is not as complicated as some make it out to be. Spend only as much money as you have coming in the door, build a reserve when times are flush and spend it down when times are tough, hire a competent fundraiser, and have board members engaged in all aspects of the operations, especially the money side. Seems to me that the Rep. board was asleep at the switch, this kind of deficit does not just happen, there are indicators and they should have put in place checks and balances to warn of this impending cash flow problem before it reached a million bucks.
Mark T.—did you see Sunday’s Merc article about Chuck Reed and when he knew of the Norcal side deal—Front page of the Merc, must be something there—Why didn’t Chuck tell his fellow councilmembers about what he knew about the side deal before the two rate hike votes in ‘03?
No to any subsidy for the Rep. but maybe a loan—
My wife and I used to be long time subscribers to the Rep. (When they put on “popular” productions.) The first season in the new theater was great. Yes the seats are small, I’m 6’2”, but if the show is good I it’s a minor problem. (The new venue is soooo much better than the Montgomery Theater.)
However, once established the art director decided to expand to less “popular” productions. During our last season we walked out during the intermission more than half the time.
There’s a reason popular is called popular!!!!! We didn’t mind a few productions that were “avant–garde”, but the whole season? We emailed the rep with no response. After we didn’t renew our subscription the next year and told them we wanted “popular” shows they ignored us.
OK, now they’re in the hole and like everyone else wants the government to bail them out.
IF, the council bails them out then Ms. Near must go. It has been her responsibility to manage the Rep and keep afloat. She KNOWS what popular productions are. She just felt like she owned the place and would educate the public so they too would be avant-garde.
I guess she’s wrong. When she was providing popular productions the rep was in good shape. The seats were filled and the patrons happy. The new theater is one of the best venues in the country and it’s such a waste to have it go under because Ms. Near wants to educate us. Ms. Near needs to be educated to please the public that sponsor her…
BTW – the Ballet is headed in the same direction for the same reason. I suspect the companies need a board of directors to keep the art directors going in the popular direction.
The list of board members on the Rep’s website looks impressive. How could so many qualified people do such a poor job managing the Rep’s finances? You have to wonder if part of their strategy of running the Rep into the ground was knowing the city of San Jose would pick up the pieces.
The city of San Jose should not be blamed. The board of the Rep should take full responsibility for the problem and solution. Any bailout by the city should look at finding a more responsible board of trustees.
Does anybody know how the rep selected its board of trustees? Could the selection process be part of the problem?
Board of Trustees: http://www.sjrep.com/about/staff/board.php
The Rep is out of touch with its potential audience. For example, the article in the Merc states that the George Bernard Shaw play “Major Barbara” sold well but the one-woman show by the only mildly talented Sandra Tsing Loh flopped. And I can’t imagine how they thought that the existential clown show called “Avner the Eccentric ’ was going to draw.
San Jose could easily support middle-brow and classic theatre such as that presented in Ashland. It cannot support experimental avant-garde. IMHO, this speaks well of the taste of south bay theater goers.
San Jose Rep is not a “downtown issue”, and shame on anyone who lables it so. The Rep issue is a “quality of life issue”.
Take a look around. We’ve already lost the oldest symphony orchestra west of the Mississippi. We’ve virtually lost our ballet company. And now our Repertory Theatre company needs some city support. Are we going to hang the spectre of “downtown” over the rep? Or are we going to look at it on merit as a vital part of our quality of life?
Or do we even care about our quality of life anymore? Are we so insulated that we say “no” to anything that deosn’t directly affect “me”?
And yet without question or comment we can open up our civic checkbooks to the tune of $4M to a transient entity?
The Rep is a vital part of our civic fabric. The Rep is asking for 75% less than the Grand Prix asked and received instantly. Why is this even a debatable issue?
Another classic example of a San Jose-based agency/institution/business with an addiction to OPM – Other People’s Money. I ask the Rep the same question I would ask the Canary Foundation, NORCAL, and VTA: Want our public money? Open your books to the public. Let the people see how you spend (or squander) the money you already get.
If the Rep doesn’t want to open their books, it indicates they have something to hide. In that instance, we need to demand new staff and management that is better suited at managing money than what the current management appears to (not) do. Failing that, as a supporter of the arts, I would recommend a BOYCOTT of the Rep until such changes are made.
By blindly approving this subsidy, our leadership at 200 E. Santa Clara Street will have again proven why San Jose is regarded as “a sleepy little town outside San Francisco.”
To even get a loan, the Rep’s people(indeed all non-profit arts groups) all need to attend a class taught by Irene Dalis of SJ Opera—she has run in the black every single season! How do we convince Ms. Dalis to teach such a class?
Re #s 1 & 5—my recollection is that after the CIM development is completed next to The Rep, there will be a net increase in public parking spaces over the number in the surface lot. It doesn’t ease the pain right now, but it will help in the long run.
This is not about supporting the Rep – it is about good non profit financial management by Rep people who have repeatedly proven they can not do we have repeatedly seen with as GI Forum, Mexican Heritage, Northside Community Center< Grand Prix and the list of wasted taxpayers dollars goes on etc
Where are San Jose fiscal controls and progress and quarterly financial reports that ANY responsible grant organization gets when they give out any grant money? We should have the same or more for taxpayers money for both loans and grants
Responsible city government fiscal management DEMAND our City Council VOTE NO on both tax subsidy and loan Reality Check – IF the Rep goes bankrupt – no loan repayment to city same a gift of public funds
I oppose a subsidy for the Rep on the same grounds as I object to the Grand Prix subsidy. If the rep were better managed and they offered productins that people actually want to see they’d do all right. If they insist of doing the artsy-fartsy stuff people are not interested in, don’t come running to me for more money.
Hey RC, I don’t want to steer things off course here but yes, that article in the Merc about Chuck only serves to provide me more conviction re: writing in somebody else’s name when I vote for mayor.
Let’ see, $4 Million for a one-day Grand Prix or $1 Million for an on-going theatrical venue. Which is the better long-term investment for downtown San Jose?
There are really two issues here. One is the use of public money for the types of things we have discussed here—car races, the Rep, etc. What is the proper use of public money in the arts and entertainment areas? Clearly that is a debate that has yet to be settled, particularly here in SJ where our “leaders” base their decisions on their pet projects and not what is best for the city.
The other issue is if SJ really is a “big city.” From the comments today, the answer is clearly “no.” We want more theater that is “popular” and less that is “avant garde.” In a true, big city, there should be room and support for both. SJ has long way to go before that is achieved.
Should the Council bail out the Rep? Not unless they do what #13 says and open their books for a full review. Without that there is no guarantee that the bail-out will be anything more than a short term solution.
This just in:
In another blow for common sense and against taxpayer subsidies for stupid projects, the county supervisors just dumped that stupid fairgrounds concert hall idea:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15390361.htm
One hopes San Jose city council follows up by cutting off the Rep.
John Michael Sobrato and Greg Avis raised a million dollars to bail them out a couple of years ago. They blew the money (on god knows what) and now are reaching out for public money. NO THANKS.
#19, but since we’re not a true big city, the question really is: if they cannot support themselves, why should the taxpayers do so? If the market for a product or service doesn’t exist, there is no reason the public has to bail them out.
I think what’s really needed in the bill of fare is a balance between “popular” and avant-garde.
Another problem with non-profit boards are the people who get on them primarily to put that fact on their resume. The single most important function of every non-profit board member is to raise tons of money and sell lots of season tickets to friends and relatives. Next, they need to watchdog the spending.
#14 – Glad someone else admires Ms. Dalis, she’s a formidable San Josean.
I’m glad Sobrato is not bailing out The Rep again, seems it’s time The Rep learns to stand on it’s own. However, this does present a prejudicial situation since the city just subsidized the car race. BUT, remember that is the sort of event that brings national attention to our city, and that’s what the present powers that be seem to think is important. I can hardly wait to see new leadership after Nov. 7th. Let’s just hope that votes are wisely cast.
Reality Check (#8), with your constant single-minded writings, I can only compare you to the Rainman… and you win!
Dear San Jose:
At a recent Sunshine Reform Task Force meeting I submitted the following proposal:
…That a cost benefit analysis must be submitted two weeks in advance of the city council meeting for any event, project, or activity that seeks a public subsidy. An after-action-audit must be performed on any event, project, or activity that receives a public subsidy in excess of $25,000. ————————-
For there to be accountability, there must first be an accounting.
Pete Campbell
P.S. Business Journal now lists new city hall price tag at $508 million! Could have had two Sobrato towers for $200 million which would have provided the city with excess capacity and a revenue stream. The biggest unreported scandal in this city can be found in the pages of the deputy city manager’s alternative sites report (May 2002) where the authors of the report assigned the construction costs of the Meier designed building to their analysis of the existing city hall site. By doing so, the authors of the report were able to dismiss the old city hall site as too costly an alternative. (Why are you reading about this from me, and not from the Mercury News?)
Pete #24: add the bond debt service costs, and the price nearly doubles. And yet the IT systems don’t work ( shoulda kept the Cisco deal), and the basement has leaked since day 1.
Does that figure include the parking garage that was held up by PAC for such a long time?
Al Ruffo must be rolling over in his grave.
Sunshine Reform Task Force has requesting proposals from community on how San Jose can improve public meetings, closed session meetings, public information and outreach, public records , technology ethics and conduct that will enhance community / neighborhood participation and ensure government accountability
Deadline for submitting proposals is August 31, 2006 We will consider all submitted proposals in developing our Sunshine recommendations
You can attend the task force meeting on 1st and 3rd Thursday of month. We will discuss Public Meetings at the Thursday, Sept 7 meeting between 6 – 8:30 pm See agenda at
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/TaskForce/SRTF/pdf/9_7_06 Meeting Agenda.pdf
You can attend and speak on the agenda topics or make suggestions in public comment time or see Sunshine meeting broadcast on Comcast Channel 26 or as a video webcast on city web site or view the archived prior meetings at
http://sanjose.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
See Sunshine Reform Task Force proposals, memos and information at
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/TaskForce/SRTF/SRTF.asp
PAC did not hold up the parking garage. The city submitted an inadequate (illegal) EIR in spite of the fact that PAC tried to tell them the EIR would not withstand a legal challenge. In typical city fashion they moved forward anyway—PAC was right, the city was wrong and everybody lost: the city lost $3 million and caused their garage to be delayed over a year and PAC was not able to save an historic building. If only the city would listen—just as they did not in the Lowe’s case. Once again, PAC was right and the city was wrong. It remains to be seen if the another historic building will be lost. The city could save much time and money if it would only follow the law, but that has not been policy under this mayor and most of his sheep-like councilmembers.
#19 has hit the bigger picture right on the nail. What kind of a city do we want San Jose to be? And that is a question since I’ve been reading these pages that no one seems to agree on.
The city council and RDA caused this issue and they should fix it. The so called heart of the city project has taken away the reps parking. And as usual, the city staff had no plan in place for the parking issues.
So the city should grant and loan money.
But here’s a thought; why not charge it back to the developers who have been handed about 20 million more than the rep needs?
#26—Can a community member propose the issue of reporting outside income as an item for discussion at the taskforce, even though the Council acted on it today? They just can’t seem to agree on what the right direction is for this. It would have been interesting to have their recommendation on the item.
# 6 Novice,
After all your writings, you finally sound like someone with some kind of understanding of the bigger picture; Europeans came after the indiginous people. Now, if you can convince the Ohlone tribe to file a lawsuit, the city can start on the financial road to recovery, along with a vibrant downtown!!! However, we will have to let one of them serve on the city council. I hope that’s acceptable to you…
PAC #27: The city lost the lawsuit, had to pay some money, re-did the EIR, and the garage is being built anyway, just a lot later. So, city hall workers have to park many blocks away for a couple of years. The whole episode was the exaltation of form over substance. The ugly building was not saved. More deserving cases didn’t get a courtroom while this nonsense was carried out.
PAC DID hold up the parking garage. If you call that a win, I’m glad your not on my team.
Does anyone know of a photo online of the building that was demolished to build the parking garage? I’d like to decide for myself if it was ugly or not. Same question for the building at the Loews site.
Good thing the Europeans came along too – hard to make slot machines out of sticks, flint rock, and animal bones.
BTW – How are things working out for ‘indiginous’ people in Mexico?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/08/03/cstillwell.DTL
http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=10462&tabla=miami
#32 JMO
I call it a lose, lose, lose, lose, lose, lose situation. The citizens of San Jose lost another valuable historic resource. We get an “ugly” parking structure. The taxpayers get stuck with paying for: the demolition of the landmark, the unneeded filling of our landfills, the waste of natural resources, initial construction costs for the parking garage for a city hall that never should have been built, lawyers fees for both PAC and the city, and an extra $3,000,000 in extra construction costs due to PAC making sure Gonzo and council follow the law. That same arrogant Gonzo and council then refused to change their illegal ways, voting to do the same thing with IBM #25, losing twice again in court (more legal fees). Cindy and Chuck both refused to follow Linda Le Zotte’s lead, and voted to break the law in both cases. As of yet, neither have admitted to making a mistake. With the choices we have for mayor, it looks like we will continue to be a bunch of losers for years to come.
JMO… if you blame PAC for the additional costs for holding the council to the law, you should then blame the Mercury for our increased garbage rates. I will never settle for breaking the law and disregarding the public process, because it costs less. What value do you put on honest, competent city leaders?
I attempted to send this earlier, but since it’s not been posted, I’ll try to recall my thoughts.
#25 – Mr. Ruffo is probably shaking his head. Here are some exerpts from a letter he wrote 6/29/01: He speaks of a letter her prepared July 2, 1997 and “hand delivered to Barbara Froman, Rob Elders, assistand Editorial Writer, with the recommendation that it be published in the Mercury News but she said it was too long and suggested that I reduce it to one sheet and then the Editorial Board would reconsider the publication. I did reduce the article to one page but they refused to publish it. AS a matter of fact, I prepared many, many letters for publication but the Editorial Board would not publish a single article.” Later he states, ” In the first place the Redevelopment Agency can’t use a dime of its funds for a City Hall. Furthermore, the Agency now has a debt of 1,459,610,000 billion dollars………..I want to ge the City’s Finance Director.”
And a good one he would have made.
This certainly speaks to the irresponsible journalism offered by The San Jose Mercury and reinforces my decision in 2001 to cancel the family membership the week my mother passed away. At that point the paper had proven to be a yellow journalistic rag. Let’s see if the new ownership is more responsible.
#33 Hugh
Try http://www.preservation.org to get to PAC’s website. I’m sure you can find a picture in one of their back issues of continuity online. You can also contact them at 998-7088. I have found them to be quite helpful. BTW they are having a membership drive this month, you may want to look into joining. They make San Jose a better place to live. Good luck.
#34: yeah, you went to court and made the city follow the law; but it made zero difference, because the lawsuit exalted form over substance. You got the city to jump through some extra hoops, but you made ZERO change in the result. It was a waste of your time and money…everyone’s time and money. The result was the same—the building was razed and made room for the garage.
A nice moot court sort of exercise, with no practical value whatsoever, and a monetary cost to all taxpayers.You cost the taxpayers money for a silly exercise that netted you absolutely nothing.
If you’d saved the building, I’d have a different view. But you didn’t. You got nothing but some empty victory that was costly to all taxpayers. You may think that’s cool that you got the city to pay. I call it a pathetic waste of resources.
You changed nothing.
37 – I never said PAC won. I said PAC was right and the city was wrong. I also said everybody lost. PAC tried to save the building. The court action was not just a “moot court sort of exercise.” The intent was to save the builidng was that was not successful. Based on your view, it appears no one should hold the city accountable for following the law unless they are 100% sure they will prevail in every aspect of the legal case. PAC does not sue just to delay or cost the city money. Attempts were made for many, many months to try and get the city to listen and to understand that they were in violation of the law. The arrogant mayor and most of the council refused to listen, proceeded to certify their illegal EIR and lost in court. You are right that the building was not saved and that is the most unfortunate aspect of this case. But if PAC had not at least tried to save the building the city would have continued on its merry and illegal ways. You may think that is OK, but I believe that the city should follow the law and ideally they should have saved the building. And as you know, “ugly” is in the eye of the beholder. You also know that historic buildings are not judged solely on their “looks.” There are many other elements that go into determining the historic quality of a builidng based on guidelines that have been established on the local, state, and national level. These are not PAC’s guidelines by the way.
In marketing parlance, each and every individual represents her/his organization and its’ brand. Timothy Near was rude to me more than once, as was one of the owners of Camera Theaters, so I don’t patronize the Rep or Camera Theaters. They say you can learn much about a person by witnessing how they treat the hired help. Jackie Kennedy was loved and respected by her staff, Nancy Reagan despised. I just don’t need downtown San Jose. All of you discuss much amongst yourselves, meanwhile I spend my time and money elsewhere.
What a far more boring and one dimensional place this would be if JMO was in charge. The architecturally significant buildings managed to be saved by PAC or through other means would all be paved over or replaced by ticky-tacky if JMO had his way.
JMO your disdain for any sense of historic preservation is downright disturbing. Have you ever considered relocating to Vegas?
No, Mark T, I do not have a disdain for preservation. I have a disdain for a government that doesn’t keep the streets repaired/potholes filled, that doesn’t provide adequate police/fire protection, that doesn’t have a strong public education system…; and I have a very strong disdain for people who have a cause that they believe in, but who want other people to pay for their cause.
Is preservation of historically/architecturally significant sites a good thing? You bet! But when government cannot deliver the basics, it needs to cut back. And you “preservationista”s need to step up. Don’t sue. Don’t pay greedy lawyers. Raise private money to realize your dreams. If you can’t raise enough money, that’s a strong signal that others don’t share your passion. Y’all have an “I know better than you and the rest of the dolts like JMO what’s good for the city ” attitude. You are the ultimate elitists.
I have things I would like to happen; but I don’t expect other people—especially the taxpayers—to pay for them.
JMO is a preservationist! He’s for preserving streets and perserving the wallets of the donute chompers.
Keep up the good work JMO. we need pot hole free streets and we need the highly paid donute chompers!
#43: What’s a “donute”. We also need better spellers, that means $$ for schools.
#42 JMO
You state your personal priorities are public education and repairing streets. Why don’t you go out like the historic preservationists did on River Street and raise money for your cause. If fellow citizens are not willing to contribute to your education-street repair cause, it might be a signal that others don’t share your passion. I have a very strong disdain for people that have a cause that they believe in, but who want other people to pay for their cause. The least you could do is go volunteer as a teacher and a ditch digger.
Sorry JMO,
It has been about 20 years since I graduated from Bellarmine. I have become too reliant on spell check. So count me in as a bad speller!
J Walker #46: Your folks must have built a building there for you to graduate without being able to spell. By the way “donute” comes up as misspelled in spell check, so your statement that you rely on it cannot have been accurate re post #43. Time to go to confession.
#46
I wish I could spell like JMO, but I’m glad I don’t think the same way he does about the downtown.
#48—You still don’t get it, do you? It’s not the way I think about downtown. I am relating the way most people think about dowtown. I’m planning to move downtown. Most San Joseans could not care less about downtown.
#49
Can you direct me to any studies or surveys that back up your statement about “the way most people think about downtown”. I would also be indebted to you if you could explain to me how to use spell check when posting on this site. My ability to spell is equal to my ability (or inability) to use a computer.
#50: I’m relying on a few hundred people I know who express these opinions; and some of those have cited dozens of their friends/acquaintances who expressed similar views.
Call Dan Fenton if you want studies. You should run for city council—they like to study/survey everything.
The easiest way to verify is to go downtown on any given night and see who’s there—kids from SJSU, a few locals, gangbangers and hip hoppers when the music’s right. You don’t see a lot of Willow Glen or Almaden looking types downtown; nor do people go home to Loas Altos or similar environs, pick up the wife and drag her dowtown for some urban fun.
SNI is also proof that neighborhoods care about their neighborhoods, not downtown.