INC NEWS - "Foolish deal" sure sounds like a 'quid pro quo' (Herald-Sun editorial)

[John Schelp]

"No matter how objectively City Council members try to
view Duke's proposal, we fear the money will be an
anchor weighing them down."
--Herald-Sun

Editorial: Sure sounds like a 'quid pro quo'
Herald-Sun, 8 November 2006

Most Durham residents want to see a beautiful new
performing arts center built downtown, and so do we. A
new theater would bring prestige, visitors and keep
the economic momentum going downtown. But just because
we really want a new theater doesn't mean we should
make a foolish deal in order to get it, which is what
City Council did Monday. 

Council unanimously voted for a "quid pro quo," which
is Latin, loosely, for "something for something." The
something City Council gets is a $1.5 million donation
from Duke University, the last piece of funding needed
for the theater. What Duke wants in exchange is a
favorable vote on its plans for Anderson Street, which
will become the main road through the renovated
Central Campus. 

The problem is that governments can't do quid pro
quos, for obvious reasons. The deliberative process
must be free from influence, especially the kind that
can be purchased with a large check. So Durham
officials like Mayor Bill Bell, who backed the deal,
are trying hard to say there is no quid pro quo. 

We want to believe, we really do. The theater is
likely to be wonderful, as is Duke's reimagined
Central Campus. And the university's proposal for
Anderson Street may well be a positive enhancement for
the area. But what if council members object to part
of it, or want to delay or bargain? Would they risk
having Duke withdraw the $1.5 million, even after
construction of the theater has begun? 

No matter how objectively City Council members try to
view Duke's proposal, we fear the money will be an
anchor weighing them down. 

We must admit the deal was struck with remarkable
openness. Mayor Bell presented the idea, City Attorney
Henry Blinder admitted it was "novel," but insisted it
was legally defensible, and the council members voted
aye, 6-0, including Thomas Stith, who voted yes in
spite of his stated objections. 

Admittedly, time was a factor. The city wanted to
freeze the price at $44.3 million before it went
higher. Bell cautioned that any further delays might
kill the project. 

We must credit City Council with doing a good job in
keeping tax money out of the project so far. But we
wish there was another way to pay for this final 3
percent.