The Data Port

Twilight of The American Empire

If anything can be said to characterize this period in the history of the American Empire it is the faint sweet smell of decay, the aroma of something barely nosed out behind the curtains of our public and private lives. It is the way an Empire in decline begins to smell.

As a people we have become spiritually feverish and anxious, only dimly aware (if at all) that we are sick yet, somehow, responding to that half-sensed odor by questing after distraction and emotional excitation. Thus we hide ourselves from the truth.

Americans have never been a particularly introspective people; our thought has always been directed outward, toward the world. We have been engineers, pragmatists. According to the the myths we employ to understand others it is the French to whom we attribute the inward turning of thought: Think Descartes.

When I look about today I can’t help but think of Rome: Bread…circuses… and Caesar’s royal circlet sold to the highest bidder; political destinies sold to the corn merchants.

Some weeks a go a friend looked up from his coffee and after a pause in our conversation said, “There is no honor any more.” Then just a few nights ago someone looked up and asked, “Don’t we care about facts anymore?”

If there is a public life without honor, then action in public life is without limits; and in a public discussion in which facts are less important than emotions, anything you say with conviction becomes true—and chaos ensues.

Tucson is well known for an initiative it took to make access to political participation open to a greater number of its citizens. It has made public matching funds available to candidates. To be eligible for the funds a candidate must first raise 200 contributions of ten dollars or more from contributors who are city residents. After that number has been reached the candidate may continue to raise money from contributors regardless of residence.

The funds that candidates raise will be matched, dollar for dollar, until the total equals 20 cents per registered voter. This sum changes, of course, during each election cycle as the number of registered voters changes.

A major question is:  Exactly what affect will the Legislature’s mandate of non-partisan elections have on public financing?  Will the order to move to ward-only, non-partisan elections destroy public financing? Remains to be seen.

Note: The requirements for mayoral candidates are slightly higher, but the principle is the same. Click

What’s oft been thought, but ne’er so well expressed…as the poet says…is exactly how badly the world can scrape against our nervous systems.

We need a new unit of measurement, a standard unit by which we measure and refer to the degree of annoyance, irritation, and aggravation caused by people, things or  states of affairs.

Let’s call this unit the Agro. Unlike the ohm or the watt its name is not derived from the name of a famous scientist. Trust me…there was no Ludovicus Agro or any such person.

According to the American Dictionary of Obscure Usage the term was first employed by professor Wilhelm Sackpfennig to express his annoyance with students who came to class unprepared.

“You have caused me much agro-vations,” he would declare. Later he shortened agro-vations to agros. “Mister Johnson, your translation has caused me two agros!”

His students thought this hilarious and for a semester or two undergraduates took up the term. With Sackpfennig’s retirement the expression fell out of use. Historians of slang assume it was replaced by expressions like “bummer,” “drag,” or “downer.”

Our individual levels of resistance to an agro attack are, of course, different. In my own case my teeth are set on edge to approximately the 2.75 agro level by folks who pronounce the words “restaurateur,” “entrepreneur,” and “liqueur” as if they rhymed with  the word “sewer”.

It is particularly annoying when these people are themselves restauratooers  or entreprenooers, but having identified the level and cause of my irritability I can simply relax  with a double shot of my favorite  liquoor.

Of course driving in traffic is an agro-enhanced experience nowadays. What are we to do with  Three-Agro-Arnie,  who refuses to get in line with the rest of us when the signs announce that traffic is funneling down to one lane?

While we honor the unwritten social compact that says things will go reasonably well if we stay cool and stay in line  ol’ Three-Agro-Arnie  rushes up to the spot where the lane narrows and then expects to nose in ahead of us. Someday we’ll all close up bumper to bumper  and make him sit there staring at the construction barriers until after rush hour.

I invite you, now, to add your own Agro.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff has forwarded The Data Port a copy of the letter she sent to constituents explaining why she supports the Stiteler development plan. As you see the focus of her concerns was the Rialto Theatre.

I am posting the letter (slightly edited for length) so that readers may make their own judgements abut Trasoff’s arguments. I invite your comments, and have invited the councilwoman to join us. Trasoff writes:

“I am concerned about the future of the Rialto Theatre.

“Tuesday, we had an opportunity to support a Development Agreement [DA] that’s been in the works for 6 months.  It is important to note this was an Incentives agreement.  The Developers already own the entire Rialto block except for the Theatre itself, which is owned by the City of Tucson through the Rio Nuevo Facilities District.  This agreement was designed to get redevelopment of this block under way NOW, despite the dismal state of the economy, setting the stage for other developers to want to invest in the area without future incentives.

“The Development Agreement included several important ‘gives’ on behalf of the Rialto:

“§         The Developers would have given the Rialto Theatre a 1,000 sq. foot bay for new bathrooms;

“§         The Developers would have given the Rialto Theatre 450 sq. feet at the northeast corner of the building to provide adequate space and a great entrance for the Theatre’s own bar, downstairs.

“§         The Developers would have provided $400,000 to the Foundation for development of the bathrooms and the bar. [This was NOT a loan! No repayment was required.]

“§         The Developers would have installed an elevator that would have made the balcony of the Theatre handicap accessible for the first time. In exchange, the Foundation would have provided access so balcony patrons could go to the Developers’ bar upstairs before and after shows, with appropriate protections both to assure they’ve paid to enter the Theatre and that liquor law provisos are met.

“There was intense pressure from the Rialto board that the Developers also had to give them the 2,500 square foot Green Room/Office space.  The problem is the Developers have other plans for that building.  But, I believe that issue was taken care of with this additional concession:

“§         The Theatre would be given use of the Green Room rent-free guaranteed for 5 years. After that, a series of 5-year leases would be negotiated at market rate.  When the Developers were ready to raze the Broadway building for redevelopment, Green Room facilities would always be made available to the Theatre on the Rialto Block at market rate rent.

“There were many other elements in the DA, including incentives to move forward NOW with renovating the ground floor of the Rialto Block, bringing in a major art gallery and JANOS, in his important return to Downtown.  Several small nonprofits would have received important funding support, including WAMO, Skrappy’s youth program and the new artist in residence program called ‘Distributor’, creating an important upgrade of one of the gateways to Downtown.

“My motion to express strong support for the Development Agreement, just working to retool a couple of language points to clarify the deal, failed to gain support.  Yes, there were a few changes needed, but I believe the basic framework was in place and felt we needed to confirm it since the deadline to which we agreed was June 17^th (the next day). I believe we had a deal that would greatly benefit Downtown’s East End, the Rialto Theatre and Downtown revitalization as a whole.  The developers would also reap benefits in the form of City property earned in exchange for their risking their cash redeveloping before the economy turned around.  Instead, Council voted to delay the decision for three weeks so the parties could continue to talk and work out details.

“Bottom line: I believe this multi-faceted development agreement was in the best interest of our community as a whole: it protected and strengthened an important City asset, the Rialto Theatre; it provided a necessary ‘push’ or incentive to getting this project moving quickly, providing a boost to other local restaurants, retail, commercial business, neighborhoods; and it gave the business community the confidence that the City would be a partner in getting our economy moving again.

“I’ll keep you posted.

“Nina J. Trasoff

Councilmember - Ward VI”

Comments? Criticisms? Objections?

The Data Port checked in with City Council offices to see what the levels of e-mail traffic were prior to last night’s vote.

A spokesman at Regina Romero’s Ward One office estimated that the office received approximately 140 e-mails in support of the Rialto Theater.

Rodney Glassman’s Ward 2 office: 100, mostly Rialto related.

Shirley Scott, Ward 4:  ”Mayor and Council comment line was bombarded” according to a spokesperson. In addition the office estimates that they received about 50, concerned about the future of the Rialto Theater.

Steve Leal’s Ward 5 spokesman, Barbara Jordan, estimated that they received about 300 e-mails to “save the Rialto.”

Nina Trasoff, Ward 6 : The Data Port spoke with Trasoff, who estimated that e-mail traffic related to last night’s vote was between 150 and 200. Trasoff sent The Data Port a copy of the e-mail she sent to people who had e-mailed her. The Data Port will discuss that in a later post.

Karen Uhlich’s Ward Three office will be getting back to us.

It’s apparent that most of the concern about the Stiteler plan centered around the Rialto Theater. There are other issues, of course, mostly about the overall financial wisdom of the deal. Those are the subject of a future post.

By a 7-0 vote the City Council last night voted to delay a decision on the Stiteler  development deal

Perhaps it finally occurred to them that giving Stiteler four million bucks worth of land as a reward for developing his own property didn’t make as much sense as they once thought.

In case you’re still puzzled by the wizardry of the Stiteler deal you might want to read this piece from The Tucson Weekly.

As a former Chicagoan this deal fills me with a sweet nostalgia for my old hometown. I think it must be the aroma of the stockyards hanging over it.

Donovan Durband’s blog- Meet Me Downtown- should be must reading for all the members of the Tucson City Council. Below are some highlights of his post, but I urge you to read all of Durband’s post.

“The main element of this agreement is the giveaway of $4 million or more in City-owned real estate to DTDC, Downtown Tucson Development Company, with contributions from DTDC to the Rialto Theatre, WAMO, and Skrappy’s that add up to far less than $4 million in real value.

“Last December, desperation led the City Council to approve the Pre-development Agreement for this deal, without proper due diligence, without proper consideration of the consequences, without proper public vetting. People were warned that they had to fall in line behind it, or else.”

And, let me add, with no performance guarantees imposed on the developer.

“Now, six months later, the City Council is up against a deadline it never should have faced; make a deal now with DTDC or pay up. Around $950,000 to reimburse DTDC for costs they’ve incurred. Wow, I know of developers who were induced to spend a lot more than that on projects they thought they were being awarded in Downtown Tucson, and they didn’t get reimbursed a nickel.

Here is the  contact information for the City Council. Call five friends and ask them to call or e-mail the Council to protest this deal.

Karen Uhlich

Ward III
1510 East Grant Road
Tucson, Arizona 85719
Phone: (520)  791-4711
FAX: (520)  791-5391
E-Mail: ward3@tucsonaz.gov

Steve Leal

Southside Ward Five
4300 South Park Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85714
Phone: (520)  791-4231
FAX: (520)  791-3188
E-Mail: steve.leal@tucsonaz.gov

Nina Trasoff

Midtown Ward Six
3202 East 1st Street
Tucson, Arizona 85716
Phone: (520)  791-4601
Fax: (520)  791-3211
E-Mail: ward6@tucsonaz.gov

Shirley Scott

Southeast Ward Four
8123 E. Poinciana
Tucson, Arizona 85730
Phone: (520)  791-3199
FAX: (520)  791-4717
E-Mail: ward4@tucsonaz.govRegina

Regina Romero

Ward 1 – Westside/Southside/Downtown
940 W. Alameda Street
Tucson, Arizona 85745
Phone: (520)  791-4040
FAX: (520)  791-5393
Email: ward1@tucsonaz.gov

Rodney Glassman

Northeast Ward Two
7575 E. Speedway
Tucson, Arizona 85710
Phone: (520) 791-4687
FAX: (520) 791-5380
E-Mail: ward2@tucsonaz.gov

While The Data port was getting ready for the move to TucsonCitizen.com I set up a test WordPress site. Frankly, I wanted to practice with the new blogging platform. That’s where what follows originally appeared. It’s my judgement that the only folks any longer truly in favor of it are Councilwoman Trasoff, one developer who is the primary beneficiary of the City Council’s largesse, and people who make their money by “planning.”

Is Rio Nuevo Based on A Mistake?

I’d like to suggest that it is. The mistake is a mixture of two things: A sentimental yearning for something that never quite existed  here, and the failure to see that much of what we might realistically expect of a downtown already exists.

This nostalgia for something that never was quite real here is captured in this song by Petula Clark. Remember? A kind of fantasy land where all the good stuff was; lit by neon. My guess is that underlying our businesslike arguments for “development” is some similar emotional engine.

In the meantime we easily forget what is already there. Museums and galleries and the public library. The Symphony, Opera, a variety musicals, and performances at the Leo Rich. Is there theater? You bet: ATC, Beowulf Alley Theater, the Rogue Theatre upstairs at The Temple of Music and Art . At either end of Congress The Fox and The Rialto. Club Congress of course, although not for elderly ears.

It’s not likely that you’ll go hungry, either: Poca Cosa, The Cup Cafe, Barrio Grill, Maynards, El Minuto, and others that I can’t name.

Fourth Avenue is alive and well and no more removed from the places I’ve named than are some venues in Manhattan or Chicago’s Loop.

Finally, there’s more of Tucson’s great “downtown” actually spread all across the city, at its theaters, galleries and truly wonderful restaurants. Frankly I’m glad it isn’t all crammed into the handful of blocks in the old downtown area.

So… let’s build a new hotel and convention center, which I believe might actually be an important economic resource, get the trolley rolling… and then call it quits. 

The Health Care debate will boil down to a debate between two choices. 

The first choice will be a set of controls on private insurance companies designed to reduce customer costs. These controls will be accompanied by a public insurance alternative (think Medicare) to keep the insurance industry honest. 

If you want to continue with private health insurance, more power to you- and the insurance industry. Side by side with the private plans there will also be a public insurance plan- and you can take your pick.

Millions of dollars will be spent to insure that you don’t get a pick. Why? Because this plan makes the industry whistle and shriek like a freshly neutered calf.

The second choice will be a set of controls on the industry (you tell me who will be writing them) accompanied by “triggers.”  These will be performance standards which, if not met, will lead to the establishment of the public plan.

Can you imagine how long that will take? Some of us had better plan to die on the couch.