The following story by Wolf Depner appeared in the Penticton Western News, December 12, 2007
A former area MP has lent his voice in favour of saving a local auditorium.
Tom Siddon, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, wants the city and the local school board to stop the pending demolition of the Pen Hi auditorium.
“It makes no sense to tear down a perfectly good and much beloved auditorium, when no one in this community has a clue how we are ever going to pay for its replacement,” said Siddon in an open letter to council.
Both the city and school board already announced that they will not preserve the venerable but aging facility as part of current efforts to rebuild Pen Hi, citing financial limitations. The city has also moved forward with plans for a stand-alone performing arts facility on Ellis Street.
But Siddon questioned this.
“In these emerging times, when sustainability is increasingly important, we are so often reminded to reduce, to reuse and to recycle,” he said.
“Why therefore would we choose to develop and pave over a new smaller site, sandwiched between the canal and Ellis Street, with all of its consequent new challenges of construction and servicing cost, parking limitations and traffic congestion? And why build a new theatre in an auto-dependent location when the present site is more central and easier to access even when walking, or by public transit?”
Siddon said saving the existing auditorium would actually benefit the community more than building a new structure as he outlined his proposal to remodel the auditorium.
Building from the “inside-out” on the existing theatre site, the theatre could be expanded and modernized into a new complex, he said.
With elections coming, both the provincial and the federal government should certainly be prepared to fund the restoration and expansion of the theatre, said Siddon.
This would cost considerably less than the estimated $40 million needed for a new theatre on Ellis Street, he said.
The Penticton Western News could not independently confirm this claim. Members of the local arts community have also argued for years that the auditorium no longer meets their needs.
But Siddon’s position is far from exclusive and he is perhaps the most prominent speaker in favour of preserving the auditorium. Earlier this year, the six living former mayors of Penticton joined forces in trying to save auditorium and the Pen Hi gym from the wrecking ball.
“We ... object to the destruction of useful community assets without replacements in place,” the mayors said in a prepared statement.
The group of former mayors have also received support from a group of concerned citizens calling itself Save Our North Gym and Auditorium.
“Penticton needs these facilities,” the group said in a presentation to local school board officials this year. “It is wasteful to tear down what is badly needed in the community and which, for economic reasons, cannot be replaced in the near future.”
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Michael Brydon: Time to reassess?
The following was submitted as a letter to the Herald:
I am often asked what became of the Save Our North Gym movement. Recall that just over six months ago, Penticton city council—aided and abetted by the board of School District 67—rejected the SONG proposal to acquire the Pen-Hi north gym and auditorium for community use. Accordingly, the two buildings will be demolished and replaced with a parking lot in the spring of 2008. Shortly following council’s decision, six former mayors of Penticton (including a former provincial cabinet minister) assembled to voice the opinion that the city had made a mistake in its decision. However, rather than reassess, council seemed content to dismiss the advice and argue that the former mayors did not have “the full facts”. This was a curious rebuttal given that several of the most important facts presented by council members in their June 4th deliberations on the proposal are verifiably wrong. For example, a primary justification offered by council for not acquiring the gym was the assertion that the new-and-improved Pen-Hi gym (currently under construction) will be available during cold winter evenings for adult recreational uses, such as community volleyball, basketball, archery and badminton. Mayor Kimberley was especially adamant on this point. However, a quick glance at the high school gym schedules shows that Pen-Hi and Maggie student teams not only monopolize their own gyms during most of the academic year, but also make liberal use of the adjacent middle school gyms. Curiously, the city’s Director of Special Projects made precisely this point during his presentation to council, noting that “the high schools are normally fully used—they are tough to get in to”. But for some reason, this seemed not to register.
As for the auditorium, the primary justification for knocking it down was the assertion that the old 700 seat facility would soon be made obsolete by the proposed $30M, 700 seat South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (as distinct from the South Okanagan Events Centre, which is currently under construction at Queen’s Park). There was even a lively debate during the June 4th deliberations about whether the new performing arts facility would be completed in 24 or 36 months. As a Herald editorial noted at the time, these estimates seemed a tad optimistic. With every passing month, they seem increasingly delusional. The city granted the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society a $2.5M parcel of land along Ellis Street in July to kick-start the fundraising for the project. However, in the same breath, the city publicly declined to contribute further to the facility’s capital budget. Thus, in the first six months of a 36-month project, the only major funding announcement that I am aware of has been a negative one. Now let’s be clear and emphatic: The point here is not to criticize those who are volunteering their time to raise $30M and make the new performing arts facility a reality. Many in the community recognize the challenges involved in an undertaking of this scale and applaud those doing the heavy lifting. Instead, the point here is to question the judgment of politicians who act as if the new facility were a done deal. The point is to inquire about the legitimacy of a multi-million dollar decision made on the basis of misapprehended facts and absurdly overconfident assessments of highly uncertain events.
So, with only a few months remaining before bulldozers flatten two valuable buildings, it seems like a good time to ask some questions: What if the six former mayors were right and our current council made a bad decision? What if the (now) 18-30-month window to find money for and build a new $30M performing arts facility seems less realistic than it did six months ago? Should we expect the members of council to reassess their positions? And, if they do reassess, should we expect them to do so while the Pen-Hi buildings are still standing?
I am often asked what became of the Save Our North Gym movement. Recall that just over six months ago, Penticton city council—aided and abetted by the board of School District 67—rejected the SONG proposal to acquire the Pen-Hi north gym and auditorium for community use. Accordingly, the two buildings will be demolished and replaced with a parking lot in the spring of 2008. Shortly following council’s decision, six former mayors of Penticton (including a former provincial cabinet minister) assembled to voice the opinion that the city had made a mistake in its decision. However, rather than reassess, council seemed content to dismiss the advice and argue that the former mayors did not have “the full facts”. This was a curious rebuttal given that several of the most important facts presented by council members in their June 4th deliberations on the proposal are verifiably wrong. For example, a primary justification offered by council for not acquiring the gym was the assertion that the new-and-improved Pen-Hi gym (currently under construction) will be available during cold winter evenings for adult recreational uses, such as community volleyball, basketball, archery and badminton. Mayor Kimberley was especially adamant on this point. However, a quick glance at the high school gym schedules shows that Pen-Hi and Maggie student teams not only monopolize their own gyms during most of the academic year, but also make liberal use of the adjacent middle school gyms. Curiously, the city’s Director of Special Projects made precisely this point during his presentation to council, noting that “the high schools are normally fully used—they are tough to get in to”. But for some reason, this seemed not to register.
As for the auditorium, the primary justification for knocking it down was the assertion that the old 700 seat facility would soon be made obsolete by the proposed $30M, 700 seat South Okanagan Performing Arts Centre (as distinct from the South Okanagan Events Centre, which is currently under construction at Queen’s Park). There was even a lively debate during the June 4th deliberations about whether the new performing arts facility would be completed in 24 or 36 months. As a Herald editorial noted at the time, these estimates seemed a tad optimistic. With every passing month, they seem increasingly delusional. The city granted the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facilities Society a $2.5M parcel of land along Ellis Street in July to kick-start the fundraising for the project. However, in the same breath, the city publicly declined to contribute further to the facility’s capital budget. Thus, in the first six months of a 36-month project, the only major funding announcement that I am aware of has been a negative one. Now let’s be clear and emphatic: The point here is not to criticize those who are volunteering their time to raise $30M and make the new performing arts facility a reality. Many in the community recognize the challenges involved in an undertaking of this scale and applaud those doing the heavy lifting. Instead, the point here is to question the judgment of politicians who act as if the new facility were a done deal. The point is to inquire about the legitimacy of a multi-million dollar decision made on the basis of misapprehended facts and absurdly overconfident assessments of highly uncertain events.
So, with only a few months remaining before bulldozers flatten two valuable buildings, it seems like a good time to ask some questions: What if the six former mayors were right and our current council made a bad decision? What if the (now) 18-30-month window to find money for and build a new $30M performing arts facility seems less realistic than it did six months ago? Should we expect the members of council to reassess their positions? And, if they do reassess, should we expect them to do so while the Pen-Hi buildings are still standing?
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Dodi Morrison: Arts accommodation for the most people
The following letter appeared in The Herald and the August 12th edition of the Western News:
The visit of the Tibetan Monks (in exile) was amazingly meaningful to many, many people.
I am reliably told that on the Tuesday of the memorable week 1,200 people went through the art gallery — and those were just the ones who signed the guest book. I’m sure there were many more who did not.
The whole undertaking was a tremendous success — and all due to our new, dauntless, inspired curator Paul Crawford. I’m (also reliably) told that he met with much opposition — he was assured that “it was too religious” and that “nobody would come.”
So he was thrilled to have that all proved untrue. As for the Sunday night concert, the Cleland was sold out — and if there had been tickets a the door — Penticton people being known for last minute decisions — well, they could have filled Pen High auditorium, I’m sure.
I have before me the pinned-up quotation I found for sale at the Monks’ table — “Loving kindness is my religion” — signed by The Dalai Lama.
I was so moved by it all — the talks at meditation, and at other times; the unforgettable sight of the monks creating that mandala, the crowd at the closing ceremony, the wonderful cross-section of Penticton’s population — following the monks until the last of the sand was deposited in the waters of the Japanese Garden — that I felt how sad it was that we were arguing about how we should approach our need for space for concerts — both for school children and adults.
I have heard all the arguments from the council and the school board. But I know that the vast number of my fellow Pentictonites really want to save those two buildings. And I know we will eventually need both. And I know that if little Oliver can decide it wants to save a much more difficult-to-save building, it’s a matter of “Where there’s a will there’s a way.”
I looked at that wonderful crowd around the art gallery and thought of how hard it might be to fill a new building with those able to afford a world-class tenor. (Neither Vernon nor Kelowna can make it pay.)
I know if either government gives tax-money to create the new facility rather than to help create affordable housing, we will be hard pressed to find anyone to clean motel rooms — or to provide other services.
And I wonder — are we really trying to approach all this with “Loving-Kindness”? Are we truly looking for the way to provide arts accommodation for the most people — young and old?
It breaks my heart to see Penticton so divided. Is there truly a “will” to find the right “way?”
The visit of the Tibetan Monks (in exile) was amazingly meaningful to many, many people.
I am reliably told that on the Tuesday of the memorable week 1,200 people went through the art gallery — and those were just the ones who signed the guest book. I’m sure there were many more who did not.
The whole undertaking was a tremendous success — and all due to our new, dauntless, inspired curator Paul Crawford. I’m (also reliably) told that he met with much opposition — he was assured that “it was too religious” and that “nobody would come.”
So he was thrilled to have that all proved untrue. As for the Sunday night concert, the Cleland was sold out — and if there had been tickets a the door — Penticton people being known for last minute decisions — well, they could have filled Pen High auditorium, I’m sure.
I have before me the pinned-up quotation I found for sale at the Monks’ table — “Loving kindness is my religion” — signed by The Dalai Lama.
I was so moved by it all — the talks at meditation, and at other times; the unforgettable sight of the monks creating that mandala, the crowd at the closing ceremony, the wonderful cross-section of Penticton’s population — following the monks until the last of the sand was deposited in the waters of the Japanese Garden — that I felt how sad it was that we were arguing about how we should approach our need for space for concerts — both for school children and adults.
I have heard all the arguments from the council and the school board. But I know that the vast number of my fellow Pentictonites really want to save those two buildings. And I know we will eventually need both. And I know that if little Oliver can decide it wants to save a much more difficult-to-save building, it’s a matter of “Where there’s a will there’s a way.”
I looked at that wonderful crowd around the art gallery and thought of how hard it might be to fill a new building with those able to afford a world-class tenor. (Neither Vernon nor Kelowna can make it pay.)
I know if either government gives tax-money to create the new facility rather than to help create affordable housing, we will be hard pressed to find anyone to clean motel rooms — or to provide other services.
And I wonder — are we really trying to approach all this with “Loving-Kindness”? Are we truly looking for the way to provide arts accommodation for the most people — young and old?
It breaks my heart to see Penticton so divided. Is there truly a “will” to find the right “way?”
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Betty and Carl Harris: Keep it simple
The following appeared in the August 1st, 2007, edition of the Western News:
There are enough opinions being presented on the Pen High auditorium/gym situation that we find it a little confusing.
Firstly, our objective was to keep what we have until replacements were in place. This is not a confusing scenario but rather a simple one. What has happened over the last few months is the fact people have taken sides and the whole thing has become confused.
Presently the city is making available a piece of land to be used for the new performing arts centre. This is a good and simple start. Next comes the funding which is very confusing. Various levels of government have made several statements that are basically not very clear. Financing is therefore in the early stages. The two- to three-year time frame for construction seems unrealistic when compared to other projects.
What happens if funding is delayed, or there is soil contamination, or water seepage from the creek? What happens if steel and concrete prices reach the sky? Any of these could delay the opening. The problem will be that when you find these out, the buildings will already be demolished.
With regards the gymnasium, we have already lost the south gym and Nanaimo Hall. Most displaced groups are not yet settled in. Also the pressure of wellness centres is increasing for all ages. What an error it would be if you have to build a new replacement gym in the near future.
Don’t forget the auditorium and gym are paid for.
We think the time has come for those involved to do some head scratching and pencil sharpening to find a way to delay the demolishing of these buildings until the possibility of a serious future scenario is turned into a simple one.
There are enough opinions being presented on the Pen High auditorium/gym situation that we find it a little confusing.
Firstly, our objective was to keep what we have until replacements were in place. This is not a confusing scenario but rather a simple one. What has happened over the last few months is the fact people have taken sides and the whole thing has become confused.
Presently the city is making available a piece of land to be used for the new performing arts centre. This is a good and simple start. Next comes the funding which is very confusing. Various levels of government have made several statements that are basically not very clear. Financing is therefore in the early stages. The two- to three-year time frame for construction seems unrealistic when compared to other projects.
What happens if funding is delayed, or there is soil contamination, or water seepage from the creek? What happens if steel and concrete prices reach the sky? Any of these could delay the opening. The problem will be that when you find these out, the buildings will already be demolished.
With regards the gymnasium, we have already lost the south gym and Nanaimo Hall. Most displaced groups are not yet settled in. Also the pressure of wellness centres is increasing for all ages. What an error it would be if you have to build a new replacement gym in the near future.
Don’t forget the auditorium and gym are paid for.
We think the time has come for those involved to do some head scratching and pencil sharpening to find a way to delay the demolishing of these buildings until the possibility of a serious future scenario is turned into a simple one.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Jeanne Lamb: Columnist put to the test
The following response to Allan Markin's recent column appeared in the July 27th, 207, edition of the Western News:
Columnist Allan Markin’s opinion piece in the July 20 Western News I feel should earn him the sentence of writing out the well known Rotary Four Way Test at least 30 million times.
The test states: In all the things we think, say or do
On completion, I suggest Mr. Markin should apply for a four-year term as public relations Officer for the Argentine U20 Soccer Team or perhaps as blog site manager for Conrad Black. Hubris would be an asset in either position.
Columnist Allan Markin’s opinion piece in the July 20 Western News I feel should earn him the sentence of writing out the well known Rotary Four Way Test at least 30 million times.
The test states: In all the things we think, say or do
- Is it the truth?
- Is it fair to all concerned?
- Will it build good will and better friendship?
- Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
On completion, I suggest Mr. Markin should apply for a four-year term as public relations Officer for the Argentine U20 Soccer Team or perhaps as blog site manager for Conrad Black. Hubris would be an asset in either position.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Jake Kimberley: Mayor clarifies city’s position on major projects
The following letter appeared in both The Herald and the Western News:
Once again I feel compelled to write a letter to clarify the process of the three major projects the city has had to deal with since I took office.
I was informed when I took office that the city was made aware in 2004 by the school district that the auditorium and gymnasium were not included in the overall site plan for the new high school and would be torn down. After I took office I was contacted by the chairperson of the school board and told the board needed a firm answer from the city on what their interest would be with the auditorium. This led to a meeting between the board, their staff, Barry Reid and myself in December 2006. We were reminded that the gymnasium was not part of the discussion and that the board needed an answer on the auditorium by June 1.
Once again I feel compelled to write a letter to clarify the process of the three major projects the city has had to deal with since I took office.
Transparency is good.[... stuff about the South Okanagan Events Centre]
I was informed when I took office that the city was made aware in 2004 by the school district that the auditorium and gymnasium were not included in the overall site plan for the new high school and would be torn down. After I took office I was contacted by the chairperson of the school board and told the board needed a firm answer from the city on what their interest would be with the auditorium. This led to a meeting between the board, their staff, Barry Reid and myself in December 2006. We were reminded that the gymnasium was not part of the discussion and that the board needed an answer on the auditorium by June 1.
We understand that saving the buildings was not in the school board's original plan. But so what? We think the old plan is a bad one and are asking for a new plan—that is the whole point. The school board's primary mandate is to do what is best for the school (which apparently means routing school buses through a busy parking lot). However, school board members serve at the pleasure of taxpayers, and taxpayers take a broader view of their interests. Unfortunately, we have two elected bodies in deadlock—each pointing to the other as if the other were some type of omnipotent authority. School board members are not elected to make their own decisions; instead, they are there to represent the interests of local taxpayers. According to the city's own survey, 60% of Penticton residents think saving the two buildings is a good idea. You would think that democratically-elected officials would see survey result as relevant.From there a complete review was undertaken by city staff and an outside consultant to determine the actual costs to bring both structures up to code and the cost of managing them and maintaining them until a new performing arts facility would be constructed. The cost estimates were $1.7 million for renovations plus $200,000 per year for management and maintenance.
As noted previously, according to the memo from Barry Reid, the estimates were $1.2M and $1.5M. I am not sure where $1.7M came from. Also, the $167K - $227K operating cost estimate includes (as Mr. Reid's memo makes clear) the salary for a full-time arts coordinator for the city (a position that the city will fill either way) and does not include any rental revenue the facilities might generate. On the other hand, the operating cost estimate does not include any fees payable to the school district for the use of the land occupied by the two buildings. I am not sure this is an issue. The school board seems to be insisting on "fair market value" for the land, but it is taxpayers' money either way. Any payment between the city and the school district would be interesting from a bookkeeping point of view, but have no impact on the taxpayers' net assets. Indeed, according to local folklore, it was not that long ago that the city simply gave the land on which Pen-Hi sits to the school district. It seems a bit rich for the school board to come back now and demand fair market value.These costs were, in my opinion, too high for the short-term life span that these buildings would have, estimated to be five years.
In his June 29 letter, the mayor put the expected life of the Pen-Hi buildings at seven years. Now it is five? Several members of SONG with construction and building maintenance experience scoff at the seven year estimate (way too low).I am sure the school board would not accept the necessary increase to the footprint of these buildings that would be needed to accommodate new washrooms and change rooms to meet building code requirements.
Also not included into the overall cost is what the school district would have to charge for the lease of these two buildings and for how long they would provide the lease for.
- As noted above, the school board does not have a veto over city plans.
- How big are these washrooms going to be?
- Both the city and the school board are showing an appalling lack of creativity in addressing these problems. What happened to can-do spirit?
Again, this lease/fair market value issue is a red herring. Imagine the logical outcome:The additional cost of 200,000 tax dollars into operating these buildings would also conflict with the already subsidized operation of the Cleland Theatre, which is still not totally utilized. Does it make fiscal sense to have two city-owned theatres competing for the same market dollar?Residents of the city should see the decrease in school taxes exactly offset their increase in property taxes. People like me outside city limits would do slightly better, since we pay our property taxes to the RDOS, not the city and would receive an un-earned break on our school taxes. The logical solution is for the school to retain ownership of the land, charge a nominal lease (e.g., $1/year) and leave taxes where they are.
- City taxes go up to pay for the transfer of money to the school district.
- The school district now has new funds with which to meet its operating budget.
- School taxes go down to reflect the new revenue.
Careful here. If it does not make sense to have two theatres, why are we investing significant city resources ($2.5M so far—see below) into a new performing arts facility. Either utilization is an issue, or it is not.The solution to this issue is to have the school board to continue to operate these buildings.
Huh? I am not sure this follows. SD67 is getting a new gym for school use. They do not have any budget to operate the old buildings. Moreover, they have no mandate to operate them as community facilities—it is the city's responsibility to manage community facilities.The interest in a building a brand new performing arts facility was initiated prior to December 2005 at which time the previous council committed $20,000 towards a study on whether such a facility was needed. This project was spearheaded by individuals who had a keen interest on developing more cultural activity in the city and bringing the city up to what both Vernon and Kelowna already have.
Which brings up a good point: Where is this feasibility analysis. Given that it was paid for with city money and donations (some large-ish donations actually came from SONG members), the feasibility analysis should be publicly available. I can't find it on the Internet.The report confirmed that a new performing arts centre would be a benefit to the city and be well supported.
According to Statscan, the Penticton area is home to roughly 43K people. Vernon has 55K and Kelowna has 162K. Maybe Vernon is still a good reference point, but comparing to Penticton to Kelowna is inappropriate—they are nearly four times our size.
Confirmed? Really? Let's see the report.In 2006 I first met with Don Grant, who had initiated the appeal to the previous council for funding of the study. He submitted three locations that his board felt would be appropriate for the building. Staff was then directed to work with the group and find a suitable location. One being the site of the existing auditorium and gymnasium — this site was unacceptable to the school board because it would restrict any future development plans they may have for that site.
Again, look at the census data. We already have more high school space than we are going to need in the coming 20-30 years. What expansion does the school board have in mind?It is the interest of this group who is spearheading this project to have it jointly funded by the province, the federal government and through private donations. It is also the intent of this group to have their own management staff run and promote the new facility. Their objective, which they feel they can achieve, is to be totally independent of the city.
Good, but this is still a risk, is it not?Last week an agreement was reached between the city and the owner of the property north of Nanaimo Hall to purchase the property at a cost of $1.25 million. This will be paid out of the city’s capital reserve fund. All these resulting decisions are, in my opinion, positive news for the city and its future.
Let's be clear about these numbers: $1.25 of new land plus a comparable parcel of city-owned land (Nanaimo Hall) means a grant to the Penticton and District Performing Arts Facility Society (PDPAFS) of $2.5M of taxpayers' money. Whether this money came from reserve funds is irrelevant: it is all public money. Given this sizable investment of taxpayers' money in this initiative, it is odd that no documentation on the project is available on the web. Why is this? How are local taxpayers supposed to understand their investment?Hopefully this explanation with these three projects will clarify my involvement with them and set the record straight.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Carol Ann Trabert: Sequel to Markin's fairy tale
The following response to Allan Markin's column appeared in the July 25th, 2007, edition of The Herald:
Dear Sir,
Having arisen from my 'fainting couch', I offer the following for your consideration.
Then tragedy struck this man and he took leave of those educated opinions he had earned over the years, and became tempted by the Next Big New Thing cult. He succumbed to New Building Dementia, which involves a single-mindedness to the New and forsakes rationality, even being prepared to sacrifice an existing, functioning facility. (Wonder if he would cut off his nose if the Cult assured him another one could be constructed for him in--well 36 months to 10 years) This poor man lost his ability to appreciate anything not New, which is a side effect of New Building Dementia. Another side effect is Money Madness, which manifests itself in an inability to recognize zeros in a dollar context. This madness is epidemic in many bureaucracies, owing largely to the fact that those spending the money do not have to be mindful of its source. It is rumoured that some think there are money grow-ops hidden in the government buildings, providing a fresh crop on a regular basis. But the ultimate manifestation is being able to talk about $30,000,000.00 of taxpayer dollars as cheerfully as they might talk about buying lunch.
But, back to the saga. This poor man fell under the spell of the Next Big New Thing Cult with its Money Madness syndrome and even promoted the idea that it was 'bad' money that paid to erect the original auditorium and gymnasium. Rational, thinking citizens raised their eyebrows at this, and this enraged him and his Cult so much that they became thoroughly rude, demeaning, and even antagonistic in an effort to defend their indefensible position that only New is Good. The group he joined gathered to concoct outrageous plans to promote their Cult. They all drank deeply of the Economic Benefit Opiate, envisioning thousands of people flocking to attend performances and magically doubling--no tripling--the sales of every hardware, grocery and shoe store in the City. And so they stumbled through their days in a Haze of Unrealism.
And if the vision they seek to impose on the thousands of citizens who aren't drinking deeply of any opiate doesn't come to pass? Hope there will be another project for the Next Big New Thing Cult. Reality may just be too hard for them to accept.
Dear Sir,
Having arisen from my 'fainting couch', I offer the following for your consideration.
The Man Who Fell From High Reason
Twice upon a time, a highly educated man took on the challenges of leadership, first as a principal and then as the Chair of a dedicated group who wished to save a well constructed, acoustically perfect building that was, however, built over 50 years ago.Then tragedy struck this man and he took leave of those educated opinions he had earned over the years, and became tempted by the Next Big New Thing cult. He succumbed to New Building Dementia, which involves a single-mindedness to the New and forsakes rationality, even being prepared to sacrifice an existing, functioning facility. (Wonder if he would cut off his nose if the Cult assured him another one could be constructed for him in--well 36 months to 10 years) This poor man lost his ability to appreciate anything not New, which is a side effect of New Building Dementia. Another side effect is Money Madness, which manifests itself in an inability to recognize zeros in a dollar context. This madness is epidemic in many bureaucracies, owing largely to the fact that those spending the money do not have to be mindful of its source. It is rumoured that some think there are money grow-ops hidden in the government buildings, providing a fresh crop on a regular basis. But the ultimate manifestation is being able to talk about $30,000,000.00 of taxpayer dollars as cheerfully as they might talk about buying lunch.
But, back to the saga. This poor man fell under the spell of the Next Big New Thing Cult with its Money Madness syndrome and even promoted the idea that it was 'bad' money that paid to erect the original auditorium and gymnasium. Rational, thinking citizens raised their eyebrows at this, and this enraged him and his Cult so much that they became thoroughly rude, demeaning, and even antagonistic in an effort to defend their indefensible position that only New is Good. The group he joined gathered to concoct outrageous plans to promote their Cult. They all drank deeply of the Economic Benefit Opiate, envisioning thousands of people flocking to attend performances and magically doubling--no tripling--the sales of every hardware, grocery and shoe store in the City. And so they stumbled through their days in a Haze of Unrealism.
And if the vision they seek to impose on the thousands of citizens who aren't drinking deeply of any opiate doesn't come to pass? Hope there will be another project for the Next Big New Thing Cult. Reality may just be too hard for them to accept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)