INC NEWS - Column: Uncle Moneybags (theater/Central Campus deal in today's Chronicle)

[John Schelp]

Column: Uncle Moneybags
by Kristin Butler, Duke Chronicle, 1 Dec 2006

If recent events are any indication, Durhamites are
competing with us for use of the phrase "outrageous
ambitions."

Case in point: Durham's plans to build a massive new
performing arts complex.

At 2,800 seats, the proposed Durham Performing Arts
Center will be bigger than the Kennedy Center in
Washington, D.C. (2,442 seats), the largest theater on
Broadway (1,940 seats), and only four seats smaller
than Carnegie Hall.

Yes, the notion that Durham-with its population of
209,000-can regularly fill Carnegie Hall is undeniably
ambitious. What's outrageous, though, is local
officials' plan to have Duke pay for some of the
Center's $44-million price tag.

Here are the sordid details: After nearly 10 years of
setbacks, shortfalls and shake-ups, Durham mayor Bill
Bell and Duke administrators formulated a plan to
"sell" us control of Anderson Street this fall. The
price? The University "donated" $2 million to the
city, an amount equal to the performing arts center's
emergency funding shortfall.

Although Duke had already pledged to donate $5.5
million to the center, this $2-million chaser had one
important catch: Durham only got $500,000 up front.
The remaining $1.5 million would be dispensed if-and
only if-the City Council approved Duke's petition to
control on-campus portions of Anderson Street. It
eventually greenlighted the plan Nov. 12 by a vote of
5-1.

Unsurprisingly, it was only due to a technicality (of
the hair-splitting variety) that this deal was
permissible under North Carolina law. Despite tepid
legal assurances, councilman Thomas Stith-the lone
dissenter in the 5-1 vote-called the deal "quid pro
quo." Angry Durham residents also chimed in,
denouncing the deal as "bribery," "criminal" and a
"boondoggle."

At this juncture, it's hard to disagree with them.
This "gift" was a blatant attempt to evade the zoning
wars that have plagued other phases of the Central
Campus reconstruction plan. Though I share Duke
officials' frustrations with those disputes, this was
not the solution I was hoping for.

To explain why, I'll defer to Nan Keohane, who dealt
with repeated demands for payouts of up to $20 million
during her tenure. Commenting for a 2004 Herald-Sun
article, Nan insisted that "we don't just want to be
seen as a money bags, as a rich uncle that can solve
all of Durham's problems." She ultimately concluded,
"Donors and parents give money to Duke for projects
and tuition, not to support the city."

How true. Even today, it remains unclear to me why
Duke is paying for the Bull City's renaissance. And
our contribution doesn't stop at alma mater's $7
million; more than $20 million in funding comes from a
1-percent increase in Durham's hotel occupancy tax,
paid in part by legions of Duke students, their
families and other campus visitors.

In fact, the only thing missing from this project is a
financial commitment from the Durham residents
themselves. Aside from Duke's contribution and the
hotel tax, the Center's funding comes primarily from
the Downtown Revitalization Fund and the sale of
sponsorship and naming rights.

And considering that they will benefit most from the
Center, I don't see why Durham residents aren't paying
for at least part of it; Mayor Bell intentionally
structured the deal to shield his constituents from
footing the bill. If residents had more skin in this
game, I can't help but think that the Center's
astonishing size, its rising construction costs and
its location (across the street from a jail) would be
more of an issue.

Why, then are we going along with this misadventure?
Beats me. In fact, there's not even a particularly
good reason why we need to own Anderson Street. I'm
told that "traffic safety, accessibility and
crime-related issues" are all reasons why, and that
legal ownership will grant us the "privilege" of
repaving and lighting the street on our own terms.

John Burness added via e-mail that this money was
"offered to ensure the long-term viability of Anderson
as a street with a campus feel," and that it may be
involved in plans for an on-campus "arts corridor."
Yet explanations as to why this should cost Duke $2
million (especially since the deal saves the city the
cost of future maintenance) have not been forthcoming.

So, Duke administrators, it's time to face the facts.
The millions of dollars you've frittered away in the
form of payoffs, "donations," "contributions" and
other financial transactions all add up to one thing:
Duke behaves more like a sugar daddy than a partner
these days, and the impulse is spreading.

Even some Duke professors have jumped on the
bribe-and-let-bribe bandwagon. My favorite among them
has to be Joe Dibona, an associate professor in the
education department, whose Nov. 8 letter to the
Herald-Sun suggested a $3-million payoff in the
lacrosse case. Although he doesn't specify who's
paying, Dibona did note that $1.5 million should go to
the alleged victim and $1.5 million to the attorneys,
which would "serve the interests of any parties
concerned."

According to Dibona, the payoff would avert more
"senseless and bombastic rhetoric in the lacrosse
case." He also assured me in an e-mail that if the
"complainaince [sic] withdrew all charges, the
students would be free of any lingering doubt over
what happened." This is presumably why Dibona thinks
$3 million would be "a small price to pay for the
solution of this painful affair."

Decide for yourself whether or not you find Dibona's
suggestions credible; for my part, I found the
proposal to be as classless as it is misinformed. But
the point is that Dibona's proposal is not so
different from what passes for institutional policy
these days, and I think it's about time we held
administrators-and ourselves-to a higher standard.

And if administrators won't listen to their better
judgment, perhaps they'll listen to Nan Keohane. Uncle
Moneybags we are not.


Kristin Butler is a Trinity junior. Her column runs
every Friday.