The City Council heard suggestions
last month that it toss the Doña
Ana County Arts Council out of the Rio Grande Theater and put
the Theater in the hands of the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Fortunately, the Council didn't seem
to warm to that idea.
I watched movies in that theater forty
years ago. In 1998, when Allen Theaters finished using it,
granddaughters of the original owners wanted to preserve and protect
the place and possibly restore it. They gave their half to the Arts
Council, which bought the other half. The idea was to create a
community facility that would also house the Arts Council.
The Arts Council raised $3.2 million,
and dealt with demolition, construction, and asbestos problems. The
Arts Council has operated the Theater. Several years ago, $250,000
in state money was available. A governmental entity had to be the
fiscal agent. The City said it could do that only if it had title to
the place. Thus the Arts Council deeded this $3 million cultural
asset to the City, to get the $250,000 to help keep operating it,
with an unwritten agreement that the Arts Council would continue
having its offices there. Later, after a general tightening up of
rules on non-profits being housed in municipal facilities, the City
contracted with the Arts Council to run the place. The contract made
clear that the Arts Council wasn't getting a free ride.
Now there's a proposal to toss out the
Arts Council. Aside from the unfairness of that to the Arts Council,
and those who donated money, the issue highlights a deeper question
of who we want to be.
The Theater is a community resource.
It's a major part of making and keeping this a community. It
presents events the whole community can enjoy. That's important.
Not just to artists and patrons, but to the City. Creating a
community people enjoy, where they're stimulated culturally, is not
insignificant to drawing visitors and even businesses concerned about
their employees.
The Theater might never be
self-sustaining. Such theaters elsewhere generally are not. With
just 450 seats (compared to 2,000 at El Paso's Plaza) our Theater
can't bring in big acts at reasonable ticket prices. The City
shouldn't view the Theater as a potential profit center, any more
than our parks or plaza are. It's a major contribution to quality of
life with a price tag kept reasonable by ticket sales – in a
building the City obtained free. Judging it as a profit center
guarantees “failure” and probably the sale of the place.
The CVB folks at the December work
session didn't appear to know much about running a theater. I don't.
The Arts Council now does, having run one for years, meeting a
variety of challenges and learning a lot of important lessons.
I'd say that the ideal solution is for
CVB to work with the Arts Council on this, in a true partnership
giving us the best of both. The Arts Council has extensive
knowledge. If CVB has ideas that can help bring in more people or
more dollars, great!
Tossing out the Arts Council ain't
right. The Theater is a gathering place where we
see a variety of local performers – plus unusual and interesting
performances from elsewhere. City Manager Stuart Ed calls it “a
unique and beautiful asset” that helps distinguish Las Cruces from
other communities.
Having heard citizens passionately
defend the Theater, Ed said, “I'm very appreciative of all the
input from the community.”
Ed says Cruces won't break its
contract with the Arts Council; but that contract is renewable July
1. A February 13th work-session will discuss the issue.
-30-
[This column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 22 January 2016, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG-TV's website.]
[Not everything of value has to be a money-maker. I'm all for performance measurement and accountability; but these need to be reasonable, and tailored to the circumstances. Here, there's a lot the Theater does and will do that has value without turning a monetary profit. As, again, our parks don't. Expecting the Theater to be a money-maker is probably nonsensical, unless city officials know something the rest of us don't (or want to set up a "failure" that would justify them in taking it over to "fail" in their turn); but expecting it to provide shows and performances and lectures and events of interest, and trying to keep an eye on costs, certainly sounds reasonable.]
[Not everything of value has to be a money-maker. I'm all for performance measurement and accountability; but these need to be reasonable, and tailored to the circumstances. Here, there's a lot the Theater does and will do that has value without turning a monetary profit. As, again, our parks don't. Expecting the Theater to be a money-maker is probably nonsensical, unless city officials know something the rest of us don't (or want to set up a "failure" that would justify them in taking it over to "fail" in their turn); but expecting it to provide shows and performances and lectures and events of interest, and trying to keep an eye on costs, certainly sounds reasonable.]
No comments:
Post a Comment