Well, maybe Governor Pataki will save us from ourselves.
Late last
week, Pataki said he would veto the budget approved by the state legislature
earlier this month. There’s a move afoot to override his veto, but that’s iffy.
And among the things at risk now: $18 million for Renaissance Square in
downtown Rochester.
If
Renaissance Square is a good idea, I’m all for it. If it boosts downtown
development — if its benefits outweigh its costs — I’m all for it.
But those
are big ifs. And nobody has even attempted to discuss them. Everybody’s just
assuming Renaissance is a great idea.
At least
with Tom Wilmot’s casino proposal, we’ve got some estimates. A study by the
Center for Governmental Research points out potential positives and negatives:
expenses, jobs created, revenue generated, risks to other downtown businesses
and property values.
But with
Renaissance Square, there’s little but mystery. This newspaper has been asking
questions about the center and its components since the git-go. All we’ve
gotten are promises that answers would be coming soon.
Let’s
review some ancient history. First there was the idea for an exciting performing
arts center. It would have a theater for major shows like Broadway musicals as
well as halls for the Rochester Philharmonic, Garth Fagan Dance, and the wealth
of small performance groups. One of those halls might be the Eastman Theatre,
renovated.
There was
great public enthusiasm about the project, and a broadly based community task
force was appointed to do the feasibility studies and start the planning. But
the project was quickly captured by political and business leaders who put the
deliberations behind closed doors, threatening members of the task force with
expulsion if they talked to the media.
Why the
secrecy? Because, said the politicians and business leaders, the project was
too important to get caught up in controversy. The secrecy would guarantee
consensus and support.
After spending a
goodly bit of public money, the task force issued its report, saying that
the community could indeed support such an arts center. The EastmanSchool would provide one
performance hall, for itself and the Rochester Philharmonic. A big new hall
would be created,
specifically designed for the Rochester Broadway Theatre League’s touring
shows, and there would be spaces for the smaller groups.
Plenty of
questions remained, which this newspaper and others kept asking. Who would own
the new performance center? Who would operate it? Who would decide the rental
fees? Who would determine the scheduling? That would be an important issue, if
several performance groups were to share a hall.
How much
would taxpayers have to spend — not just to build the center but to operate
it? How much would come from taxpayer money, and how much from private
donations? What would happen if ticket sales and rental fees didn’t pay
operating costs? Answers, we were told, would come in the next stage.
Then the
task force was disbanded, and the project was slipped into the hands of a
five-member committee: two city officials, two county officials, and Wegmans’
attorney.
That
committee spent some more of our tax dollars, hiring a consultant — a local
developer — to begin the planning. And it was assumed that the consultant
would get the job of doing the development.
The
selection of that developer — a major contributor to the Republican Party who
was also a board member of the Rochester Broadway Theatre League — was
controversial. When this newspaper questioned it, we were told that his company
was the best one for the job: he had a history of successful local
developments. And he had connections, we were told, that would up the chances
for funding the project.
The
committee’s meetings were not open to the public. No public hearings were ever
held. And despite repeated attempts, this newspaper was not able to get copies
of committee minutes. Nobody took minutes, we were told.
The final
report recommended building the large hall for Broadway shows and similar big
events (principal user: RBTL) and two smaller ones for the small arts groups.
The EastmanSchool
would go off on its own, raising its own funds for its renovation.
But
significantly, the report recommended building the “center” in stages. The big
hall would come first. The others would follow. Sometime.
And then?
Well, then the thing just kind of dragged on, in secrecy. And the EastmanSchool and some of the smaller
performance groups went their own way, raising their own funds and working on
their own performance space.
And then
there was the stock-market bust, and continued local economic decline, and
9/11….
Meantime, the transit
authority had come up with the peachy idea of a big new bus station smack
in the middle of downtown. It would provide a nice, sheltered place for people
to wait for the bus. There might be a day-care center, a food court, small
retail shops. Initial estimated cost for the bus station: $25 million.
Again, this
newspaper and others had questions. Do we really need a downtown bus station,
given the numerous other local transit needs? How would a bus station in a
prime location affect other downtown developments? Would it be compatible with
the city’s plans for residential uses in the area?
Why, when
other cities were building “intermodal” transportation projects — linking
bus, rail, and plane uses — would Rochester
want to build an isolated, single-use facility?
Who would
provide the $25 mil to build the thing? And how much would it cost taxpayers to
operate it each year?
The transit
authority simply dismissed most of those concerns, insisting that a bus station
was good for riders and would boost downtown development.
On
questions of cost, transit authority chair Bill Nojay had soothing answers. The
transit authority, he said, would be cautious. Officials in cities with bus
stations had advised the Rochester
authority to be sure it knew how it would pay for the operating costs.
“You don’t
want to find yourself three to five years from now cutting service to the poor”
to fund the bus station, he told me in 1998.
At one
point, Nojay said he expected that the city — meaning city taxpayers —
would pay part of the cost. City officials insisted all along that the city
couldn’t afford to.
Until a
couple of years ago, Nojay insisted that the bus station would be “revenue
neutral.” The transit authority wouldn’t go forward with the project, he said,
unless it was certain that rent from adjacent facilities like a food court and
retail stores would pay the operating costs.
The bus station then
morphed into a grandiose plan — frequently shown in transit-authority TV
ads — with a large office building adjacent to the bus station. The office
building disappeared when local developers said there was no market for it.
The cost of
the bus station increased, however, in part because the city insisted that the
passenger loading area be underground, to reduce noise and pollution and lessen
the impact on nearby buildings.
Now, of course, the bus station has
morphed again. It’s one component of Renaissance Square, which is to also
include the performing arts center and a new MonroeCommunity College tech center.
Our early
questions about the performing arts center and the bus station remain
unanswered. And I have a major problem with the plans for the tech center. I’m
all for new college uses downtown, and the tech center sounds like a good idea.
But to build Renaissance Square, we will tear down some decent, though
down-at-the-heels, small buildings. A better location for the tech center is
one of the most important buildings in downtown Rochester:
the SibleyBuilding.
True to
recent tradition, plans for Renaissance Square are being developed in secret.
We’re asking taxpayers from throughout the state to help us build an expensive
project about which we know little. Answers to crucial questions — most
particularly, about costs — are being bounced on into the future.
Governor
Pataki ought to be worried. Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature
ought to be worried.
And so,
folks, should every taxpayer in MonroeCounty. Even if we cobble together
enough money to build Renaissance Square, we don’t have a clue about how much
we’ll have to pay each year to operate it.
This article appears in Aug 25-31, 2004.
