Fat Cats and Starving Artists: Keep Arts-Based Development Arts-Based

Last week, arts development expert Philip Morris was in town at the request of the Geneva Arts Development Council (GADC) to revisit a six-year-old plan for arts development in the City.

The GADC, headed by former newspaper man and current PR pro, Phil Beckley, states their vision and mission is to advocate for the arts in Geneva and to bring about downtown revitalization. The GADC board’s membership includes many familiar names: local bankers Steve DeRaddo and Bob Schick, businessman and philanthropist Carl Fribolin, Chamber head Rob Gladden, attorney and former City Councilor Alaine Espenscheid, current City councilors Ron Alcock and Jason Hagerman, and Gorham developer Chris Iversen. The board also includes some arts-related members: Murray Heaton, Geneva arts advocate and attorney; the Rev. Jim Adams, founder of the St. Peter’s Arts Academy; and Eleanor Stearns, long time member of the Geneva Theatre Guild. Jan Regan, Capraro’s wife, is on the board representing the Boys and Girls Club, where she is also a board member.

Six years ago, Philip Morris and his associate, Ernest Hutton were hired by an ad hoc steering committee, the Finger Lakes Cultural Committee, to review plans for a “cultural center,” which was to be, principally, a performing arts/convention center adjacent to the existing Smith Opera House. That steering committee included Beckley, Schick, Iversen, Heaton, Rich Rising, Don Cass and others (see full list on page 2).

The City’s preferred architect, Dan Mossien, designed the original plan (shown above) which included rehabilitation of 305 Main Street and demolition of other buildings between the gas station and the Smith. Needless to say, such a bold proposal was the source of controversy among community members generally and current small business and/or building owners, specifically.

To their credit, Morris and Hutton, despite having been hired to rally support for the project, questioned its viability. The conclusion they reached (contained in the summary on pages 5-7) was that there was not an “apparent...organizational or programmatic demand sufficient to justify a substantive investment in new cultural center performance facilities.” Therefore, they said, “our report, instead of answering the original question, asked a broader and more critical question: what would be the best next step for the arts of the community in the context of its downtown?”

Their report favored a more holistic approach to arts development. No big bang, just incremental growth. “Arts development” is an ambiguous term. For some, it means “development of the arts.” For others, it means “economic development with artistic themes.” The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Arts based economic development is, indeed, viable, and the best of both worlds—art for art’s sake and art for its economic benefits. However, the motivation and the emphasis of each perspective may be very different, with the one focused on quality of life and the other, on quantity of wealth.

We believe the steering committee, which has been reincarnated, it seems, as the GADC, and is dominated by the latter perspective, never really abandoned a large scale, arts-related facility. What the steering committee came to steer was actually the economic development of the City itself. If you compare the Morris and Hutton report with every major project undertaken by the city in the past few years-- especially those which required significant taxpayer investment or tax abatement— you’ll see the correlation.

In 2004, the steering committee petitioned City Council to take ownership of the former gas station at 305 Main Street. Page 13 of the report (and the abbreviated Mossien concept presentation) illustrates the building as the anchor of the to-be-constructed convention center/arts complex. Up to that point, and thanks to a federal tax lien on the property, the city was able to avoid taking ownership of the decrepit but historically valuable structure. It, thereby, avoided the expense of any clean up of the property, should that become necessary.

However, at the arts group’s urging, the City petitioned for ownership of 305 with the understanding that the arts group would purchase it for $1 and use grants and tax credits to rehabilitate it for their project. For a reason never explained to the public and unknown to us-- perhaps because it finally sunk in that Morris and Hutton were correct that the project was not viable-- the arts development group flip-flopped. The City was left holding the bag—leaving taxpayers first in line for clean up costs, and the ongoing fiasco which leaves the building neither rehabilitated nor demolished.

Several private developers submitted bids to take over the building, but they were turned away with no explanation. Now the City insists on spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to demolish the building to create an empty lot, a gap-toothed cityscape on Main Street. No plan has been publicly presented for reuse. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a plan in the works.

Could be that the premise of the 2002 study, the development of a convention center on that site, is still a shadow guiding principle. We can certainly understand why some people might want to build a convention center. As a not-for-profit entity, the project would be eligible for significant tax credits from the State. That means a big financial win for the group of investors in the property. And it’s location in the City’s Empire Zone means even more financial incentives. Another round of RESTORE NY grants should be coming out, meaning that there are a lot of taxpayer dollars that can be used to build this dream project. In other words, because of the funneling of taxpayer dollars into a convention center, it might be a profitable investment for some developers.

But the critical question is: Would it be the best way for long-term arts development, or long term economic development for the community? Convention centers are civic facilities which require a substantial investment of tax dollars but generally do not provide a significant return. Not only are they tax-exempt, but they must be consistently booked to support their ongoing operating costs. Convention centers, like sports stadiums, were held in the 1990s, as the answer to urban prayers for revitalization. But, studies have now shown that convention centers yield a net negative return for the public that must cover the costs of construction and operation of them.

Click here to read the Brookings Institute Report, “Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy.” Even the hotel industry, which is a convention centers’ biggest cheerleader, fired a warning shot in the late 1990s, discussing the cost-benefit ratio in not-so-sunny terms. You can read a summary of that report here.

Projects like the Ramada Inn and the Hampton Inn were public-private partnerships that, it is assumed, yield hefty returns for the local investors. The disclosure of private investors in such schemes is not required by law, even though public dollars are part of the business plan, so we’ll never know for sure.

The same model could be applied to Geneva’s convention center. But supporting the Smith Opera House, local artists, and small businesses related to the arts seems a much better investment of public money that will bring lasting returns. That is certainly preferable to the City spending taxpayer dollars for the administrative costs of a development corporation that sees the arts as the next investment opportunity.