Author Topic: Washington Post Editorial & Seth's reply  (Read 1882 times)

Roger Music

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
Washington Post Editorial & Seth's reply
« on: January 04, 2008, 12:56:00 pm »
On Sunday, December 31st the Washington Post wrote  editorial about the Silver Spring music venue.  Today in the Washington Post Seth Hurwitz responded in a letter to the editor.
 
 Washington Post Editorial:
 
Quote
Live, From Silver Spring!
 It's only rock-and-roll, but Mr. Leggett likes it.
 Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page B06
 
 IS MONTGOMERY County so jazzed about snagging a world-class music hall for downtown Silver Spring that it is about to finalize a sweetheart deal that treats taxpayers' dollars like Monopoly money? That's the question occupying elected officials and residents of Montgomery -- none more so than County Executive Isiah Leggett, whose Houdini-like ability to escape the entanglements of controversy is being tested severely.
 
 Having ended five years of fruitless negotiations to entice the folk- and blues-oriented Birchmere to open a venue in Silver Spring, Mr. Leggett landed a much bigger fish. In September he signed a tentative agreement with Live Nation, possibly the world's largest music promoter, for a deal that would devote $8 million of state and county funds to develop a Fillmore hall, which could draw some of the music world's hottest acts.
 
 There is recent precedent for using public funds to attract major entertainment acts to the suburbs; Strathmore, a glittering performing arts center in Bethesda built with $100 million in county cash, has been enormously successful. There is also the logic of erasing the remaining vestiges of urban decay in downtown Silver Spring, whose revitalization remains a half-finished project. The American Film Institute, the Discovery headquarters, the Round House Theatre and pleasant new restaurants rub shoulders with the dead space and gloom of unrenovated city blocks.
 
 The questions that have arisen about Mr. Leggett's preliminary agreement with Live Nation are legitimate. Was it really necessary to devote $8 million in county and state funds to a for-profit venture in a prime location? Could the county, which would own and mostly build the facility, really not demand more than $90,000 a year in rent -- a pittance for a hall, with a capacity of 2,000, that stands to take in millions from ticket and beverage sales? Why did Mr. Leggett not seek another bidder that might have offered a better deal?
 
 But those questions have been raised mainly by IMP, the Bethesda-based owner of the hugely successful 9:30 Club in the District, which clearly has an agenda -- it doesn't want the competition that Live Nation would bring. IMP has challenged Mr. Leggett by insisting it could do the deal on terms somewhat more favorable to the county. Maybe. But IMP, which jumped into the game at the eleventh hour, seems more interested in safeguarding the 9:30 Club's status as the busiest music hall in America (as measured by ticket sales) than in establishing a presence in Silver Spring.
 
 If Mr. Leggett can use IMP's pressure to extract better terms from Live Nation, fine. He may even want to put the deal on ice temporarily to make sure he's getting the best deal for the county's taxpayers or to examine IMP's offer seriously. But he should not jeopardize the chance to juice Silver Spring's rebirth by attracting a top-flight music club.
 
Seth's Reply:
 
 
Quote
 
 Open Up the Bidding in Silver Spring
 Friday, January 4, 2008; Page A20
 
 I'm glad that The Post recognizes that Montgomery County is making an outrageously bad backroom deal to build a music hall ["Live, From Silver Spring!," editorial, Dec. 30]. Yet the editorial stopped short of demanding what the community is pleading for: a transparent process. There is absolutely no reason why a proper evaluation of qualified potential operators would make the music hall project go away altogether. I am ready to legally commit to double the offer made by concert promoter Live Nation, and I can't imagine that Live Nation would walk away for half of our higher offer.
 
 The idea of cavalierly dismissing a legitimate offer because of our competitive position sets a troublesome precedent.
 
 The motives of IMP and Live Nation are identical, yet immaterial. With a proper process, all parties are judged on ability and greatest return to the county.
 
 Even if Montgomery County wasn't facing its biggest-ever budget deficit, would it be a good idea to give away the venue for less than a tenth of its worth?
 
 If the Live Nation deal can stand on its own merits, there is no need to fear an open process. We say open it up. Invite all. It won't take long.
 
 SETH HURWITZ
 
 Chairman,
 IMP
 Bethesda
 

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19716
Re: Washington Post Editorial & Seth's reply
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2008, 01:19:00 pm »
Are we going to get Callat703's response?
27>34

930clubber

  • Member
  • Posts: 277
Re: Washington Post Editorial & Seth's reply
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2008, 03:36:00 pm »
Where was the outcry for "transparency" when the "Monopoly money" was awarded to Halliburton?