My goodness, just when I thought those guys' scumminess had its limits.

The Rialto has made it abundantly clear they don't give a crap about the downtown.

What the general public doesn't know is that the Rialto had six months to pound out a deal with these developers and only raised holy hell the last 3 weeks of the deal over 4,000 square feet that they felt they should have obtained for free.

What the public also doesn't know is that the 4 million in land that these developers would receive would only be awarded to them after they spent 6 million on revitalizing downtown.
6 million which was to be allocated to several players in the downtown area- Skrappys, WAMO and MOCA, as well as various other venues and just over all visual improvements. There were biweekly meetings to hash out this deal and the Rialto didn't know show up for any of them. They instead insisted on having private meetings without input from the other major players that would benefit from the deal- Non-profits.

After a deal was actually made, only a matter of days before the 6 month deadline, the developers left town and the Rialto launched a smear campaign via email. Suddenly, all the work these developers and non-profits had done didn't matter, because the Rialto wanted free space. At the council meeting the Rialto claimed they were the soul reason that 130,000 people a year came downtown to patronize businesses, completely dismissing Congress, Maynards, Tooleys, Skrappys, MOCA..etc..

As is their way, The Rialto continues to care only about the Rialto. They were fully aware that their unwillingness to negotiate with these developers meant that all these other non-profits would lose out. They're not community oriented. They're not interested in creating a vital downtown, and if you don't believe me, consider this-when Skrappys was on the corner of 5th and Broadway in a building managed by the great and powerful Doug Biggers (manager of the Rialto), he was charging a youth lead community center 3600 bucks a month, when his own rent at the Rialto was 3200. Furthermore, as anyone who's gone to the Rialto can tell you, you're not treated as a guest. You're treated as an annoying in-law there for a 3-5 hour stay. Most people go see a show and promptly leave across the street to Congress.

During this whole negotiation process the city did nothing to reel Doug and his crew in. They didn't attend the meetings themselves to find out the full story, and they didn't mention any one of the other players involved in this process. If the city had shortened Doug's leash and moved forward with the plan, the Rialto would have received this property rent free for 5 years. They would have received 4 million for their venue and the block they reside in (while the arts community received less than a million because of all the revisions). They would have had a shiny new bar- so maybe people would want to stay after a show for once. The city,you, would receive 20% of the profits from that bar at the developers request. But the Rialto said NO. Ever entitled. And the city council said no, possibly because they can never seem to find their balls.

In a recession, who is going to come to downtown Tucson and offer up 6 million dollars to make our seriously neglected city some place people want to patron? We must like boarded up windows and warehouses that constantly change owners or stay empty for years.

So I don't shed one tear for the Rialto. You cannot play poker without a wager, and you don't get to have the support of team when you're an ass on the field.
Really, what did you think was going to happen?

Lizz, you are wrong. The deal for the developers was that they would spend $1.7M over five years (maybe) and get $4.3M in land. In fact they would get roughly $2M of land for simply signing the deal and doing nothing. You can blame the Rialto all you want but they do not finanically gain from making sure the Rialto stays in business. This is City property that is actually working and the City needs to make sure vindictiveness does not destroy it.

So we're to believe that the Rialto would collapse if they lost their present green room? Sounds like its either a very fragile business or a dishonest presentation of the stakes. Why on earth did Mr. Biggers sell that property to Mr. Martin then if it is such a keystone for the venue? Martin and Stiteler want to develop the block, that's a good thing we've been told, but now because Biggers, who has just sat there for years, doesn't own it, the intended developments are bad, a product of "greed." The bias at work with Mr. Nintzel is simply laughable. Trying to bring eminent domain into this is a completely thuggish move; an attempt by Biggers, who sold the property fair and square, to dictate to a former partner who he's managed to become on bad terms with, yet again, what he can do with his own property. The Weekly should be ashamed of itself for posting this without any attempt at balance or honestly reported backstory.

Oh and azghostdog, the people who are running the Rialto do very much gain by it staying just the way it is. Only now that would mean the violation of another man's property rights. If Mr. Biggers cares so much about the green room he should not have sold it, period. But don't worry if they lose it the Rialto will not collapse as the cassandras are telling you. They might just have to install a shower somewhere or lose an office in the building.

This is the great and powerful Doug Biggers.

Almost all of Lizz's post is factually and contextually inaccurate.

The good work that is the Rialto Theatre speaks for itself.

Thanks for all the support!

The hyperbole coming from the Rialto camp is simply laughable, bordering on the absurd. Their website has a logo complete with a gunsight/target and the words " Rialto Under Siege". C'mon boys, don't you think that is overdoing it a bit?

Kudos to lizz and marzipan for speaking truth to power. Be careful, though. Biggers has a penchant for crying foul and lobbing accusations of slander whenever anyone has even the slightest constructive criticism. Poke around on the internet and you'll find him lambasting people for posting poor reviews of shows they have attended.

There are so many things wrong with this whole scenario, I don't even know where to begin.

First, this is not a good guys vs. bad guys situation. This is a snake vs. rat fight and it looks like the snake is going to eat the rat. It's just part of the order of things. Don't feel sorry for any of the parties involved, this pissing match is really just about the bruised egos of two grown men who have been vying for control of one little corner of the playground.

Here are some issue that seem to have been left out of the rhetoric.
1.
Doug Biggers was owner or part owner of the Rialto block for over five years and did nothing to improve or develop the block. It's been boarded up for years, collecting graffiti tags, broken windows and pigeon shit. Now, they ( the Rialto Foundation) wants to say that the real estate is worth next to nothing.

"The Theatre has used these spaces for the last four years. The rest of the Rialto block is vacant. The Rialto building is a gutted shell with a boarded-up storefront and the back building was little more than a bombed-out shell before the Foundation spent about $70,000 improving it for its offices and green room. These spaces will sit vacant if the eviction effort succeeds." ( From the Rialto Website)

Ok. There is one very big thing wrong with this. If that statement is true, the Rialto Foundation ( read "Doug Biggers") has no one else to blame. Those buildings were in the state they are currently in long before Martin et al got involved. Also, when did the Rialto Foundation spend $70,000 to spruce up the green room and office area? If it was a project they started before selling out, thats the cost of doing business. If it was after, it's their own fault for investing money in someone else's property. It just doesnt make sense to me either way.

2.
The Rialto already recieves free rent from the city of Tucson ( as reported by several news sources over the last several years) in exchange for improvements to the theatre. If, by their own words, they are a succesful, thriving business, why do they need even more free rent?! A not for profit organization dedicated to the arts should be reinvesting its money in the theatre as well as helping fund other ventures in the area. But tell me, what has the Rialto done to reinvest it's money? If they arent paying rent on any of the space they use, and the biggest improvement ( the air conditioning) was paid for by the City, where is the money going? Electric bills for a space that size are sizable, I'm sure, but they cant be THAT big. So, show us some improvements to the property. PLEASE.

3. Their is a level of conciet intrinsic to the Rialto Foundations argument that they are the engine that drives the downtown arts district. While the fact that they do generate good business cant be ignored, it's a little short sighted of them to suggest that they are responsible for all of the success of business downtown. If the Rialto, for the sake of argument, hosts 150 shows a year, that leaves 215 days of what? Empty streets and vacant bars? Ive been to many bars downtown when there wasnt a Rialto show and they were buzzing with business. Are all of those people Rialto patrons who simply forgot the way home after a Roger Clyne show, and decided to spend the week at the Tap Room or the Grill or any of the myriad other bars? While the Rialto's success has improved downtown, it's not the only game in town. In fact, it wasn't long ago that you were likely to hear:
" Where's the Rialto?"
" It's across the street from the Hotel Congress."
"Oh. Now I know."

Simply stated, the Rialto is not ENTITLED to recieve unlimited subisidies and giveaways. It would be remiss of the city to get involved by claiming eminent domain over a space that was only available to the Rialto because it's Executive Director was the owner of the property in question at some point. The fact is that Biggers sold his share of that property for a sum of money. It's now privately owned property and to deny someone that right for this purpose is at best, morally objectionable. Further, if ( as Biggers has stated publicly several times since the beginning of this debacle) the Rialto Foundation is simply the steward of the property and ultimately serving the City and its citizens, then why not require more accountability from the foundation. If the Rialto is paying no rent and doing little to make noticable capital improvement, and is responsible for only a portion of downtown's success, what are the citizens of Tucson really getting? They need to show us in terms more tangible than " Our good deeds speak for themselves."

"Their is a level of conciet"

you're drooling on your keyboard. try not to be so wrong next time.

Is that all you've got; a pedantic correction of my spelling? Your avatar's head isn't big enough. Try not to be so pompous next time.

Oh my God, "Rialto under siege" - are you kidding me? Its just like Gaza everyone, man the barricades! These people are shameless.

I do find it frustrating that (as far as I have been able to tell over the years) the delay in improving the entire Rialto block has been about squabbling developers. As a resident of Tucson, I feel cheated by the failure to improve more than the actual theater venue.

I think the Rialto is fantastic, but not particularly because it is irreplaceable as a venue. We have the people to support the shows- I'll go see Richard Thompson or Lucinda Williams wherever they play in Tucson- it doesn't have to be the Rialto. What I love most about it is it's historic beauty. I value that block for its buildings, and it's layers upon layers of history. As a fourth generation native, I am happy to support any endeavor that gives back to the City, that preserves historic architecture, and makes something good out of something vacant.

Frankly, I'm tired of well-heeled bankers and developers crying foul, and I want this handled. I want that block cleaned up, and preserved, and I want the deferred maintenance taken care of.

It seems to me that all parties in this deal have been offered vast sums of my and my CIty's money to go forward, and I'd like them to stop squabbling and work out a damned deal, before those gorgeous buildings have to suffer another year or ten of utter neglect.

With all due respect aholub, I notice that you have avoided countering any of the specific objections that have been raised and instead just provided more vague platitudes of support; the Tucson Weekly believes that the Rialto is simply a good thing, ergo defend the “green room” by bringing in the city to exercise eminent domain. Some of us also believe that the Rialto is a good thing, but without the blind allegiance your paper seems to have to the management that has brought us to this sorry point. The Rialto is not just a building, it has stewards who guide its existence. If a ship is listing badly, it is fair to ask: who is the captain and how did the ship get this way? As I mentioned above, losing the green room doesn’t seem like a fatal blow for the theatre and if the man at the helm actually SOLD it, then the histrionics and the crying foul (and you mention personal attacks, the only clear ones I see are made by Nintzel referring to Martin and Stiteler as “greedheaded developers” for having the audacity to want to develop property that they own) are ridiculous. The Rialto is not under siege, but by the accounts above, it does seem to have a very incompetent driver at the wheel. Do they have no money to spend on converting a space in the theatre into a new green room? And I hope you realize that a “no” will not be a satisfactory answer.

i guess you guys don't understand how a music venue operates
without the rooms the rialto needs, they will be unable to book many to most of the artists who the rialto wants to book. Those artists will then simply go up to Phoenix and play their show there, with Tucson being the loser.
I've talked to many bands who have come through Tucson and they all say how much they enjoyed playing the Rialto or Congress and how much they enjoyed stopping by in Tucson. Cmon, lets not fuck things up and be the laughingstock of the music world too. We already are in political world.

Ulysses,

If I'm included in "you guys" then I disagree and you haven't been reading closely. The people running the Rialto have sold one of the "rooms the rialto needs" as you put it. And now would like to force the owner of that room into doing the seller's bidding because it will interfere with their enterprise. I really hope that the basic injustice of that is not so hard to understand. Also and again, I don't see how this sinks the Rialto as a music venue. The theatre is there, if they need to refurbish a portion for band lounging and bathing, that should not be so hard to do, if they are really in the black as has been claimed.

Mr. Boegle,

I hope that was directed at Nintzel and not me :-)

Either way, the Rialto is one of the best Theatres in Tucson, and we can't let it go out of business.

The Rialto is now soliciting endorsements via their twitter account, encouraging people to counter the "haters" who have posted here. Even more disturbing is this tactic, borrowed straight out of the Tammany Hall trick bag:

Attend City Council Study Session on July 7 at 2 pm to support the Theatre. Come over to the Rialto Theatre afterward for a free beer!
(from Rialto on Twitter)

Miss Holub,

This is not the big business vs little man type of battle that the Rialto hype machine would have you believe. It's a grudge match between the man who ( knowing how vital the relationship between the Theatre and the block was) held on to the Rialto block too long, failed to deliver on his promise to develop it and, in a hasty decision, took on a business partner who either outsmarted or " out moneyed" him. I don't believe that Martin and Stiteler are the right guys for the job, but thats not the real issue. Hyperbolic attacks on the nogoodnik developers are just red herrings designed to elicit sympathy from the mostly uninformed public. Your suggestion that as a Tucson Weekly contributor " for a good long time" you have a better understanding of the ins and outs makes for a specious argument. Ive lived in Tucson for 35 years, have been a supporter of the arts and music scenes since seeing my first show at Nino's in 1984, and I've witnessed the successess and failures of nearly every live music venue since then. Every new "regime" claims they have tapped in to something so great, and the people of Tucson, jaws agape with wonderment, buy it , lock stock and barrel. That kind of blind devotion reminds me of the way teenagers blithely protected Tucson's most infamous serial killer, Charles Schmid, from justice because of how "cool" he made the scene. Your calibre vs. quantity of shows argument doesn't make that much sense to me. First, I remember seeing bands like Cracker and No Doubt at the Buena Vista Theater ( both bands during their heyday) long before the Rialto Foundation existed. Booking agents likely respond to market forces, not how cool a venue or a city is. If it makes sense and money, they'll bring a show to Tucson.

Finally, your mixed metaphor about amputation and lobotomy is just plain weird! Lobotomies were performed with the assumption that they would offer relief for mental disorders. If you are trying to suggest that requiring the Rialto to pay rent on two small spaces they use will somehow cripple downtown, that is a huge leap of logic, and erroneously suggests that the rest of business downtown is contingent upon the Rialto's ability to expand, or at least succeed within a limited footprint.

Ulysses,
The same goes for you; I doubt booking agents don't book shows based on how great the dressing rooms are. If the show is going to make money, they will book it in Tucson. Further, just because a band says they like Tucson probably doesnt mean they will play there. I assume that bands with booking agents, by and large, play cities and venues suggested by the agent because it will make them money and or new fans. Don't be so daft.

The Rialto Foundations martyrdom is see-through. The "if youre not with us youre against us" ploy should be obvious to all interested partys, but since it's not, Ill say this: Not supporting the eminent domain threats launched by the Rialto Foundation and certain other players is the right thing to do for two reasons. First, taking away the private property of citizens ( especially using the false argument that it protects City assets) is ethically objectionable, and by governance, is WRONG. Second, the only reason Rialot Foundation had access to that property is due to the fact that its Executive Director owned the property at the beginning of it's use. He NO LONGER OWNS THE PROPERTY.

Finally, don't buy in to the diversionary tactics of the Foundation. Not supporting their counter move of insisting on unlimited and free access to the property in question DOES NOT mean that you either don't care about the arts, or that you want the Rialto to close.

Fight the Power?!?!
I prefer " DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE!"

The developers have been letting Rialto use space for free, and have been trying to work out a deal with the city or the Rialto, so that they can make some money off of the deal, but neither the city nor the Rialto seems to want to share any profits with the developers, even though the developers are offering free-use of their property. Now they're fed up with giving away their property and getting nothing in return, so they're saying 'screw you' to the Rialto.

I really like the Rialto, but from what I've read so far it seems like the developers have every right to do what they're doing. What side of the story am I missing? Is there any reason to be sympathetic to the Rialto?

Conch -- The Rialto apparently has agreed to pay rent. The main disagreement seems to revolve around how much the space is worth per square foot. Also, as I understand it, the developers are asking for back rent for the time they allowed the Rialto to use the space for free. The Rialto doesn't think it should have to pay that. It's clearly one of those things that woulda, shoulda, coulda been agreed upon in advance, but here we are.

Love 'em or hate 'em, right or wrong, we can't switch out any players at this point. Nor can any missteps in the whole history of the debacle be changed. Looking forward, the whole thing seems to boil down to a couple of what might ordinarily be simple real estate considerations: 1) How much space does Rialto need to accommodate essential activities for which there's no suitable space in the theater?and 2) what is the fair market rental value of that space? As a practical matter, though, there is also 3) what do the owners think is the highest and best use of that space?

Number 3 is about the only one on which public opinion and the City Council might be able to have some influence. Might. It seems the council is trying to buy time and bring the parties back to negotiating. Let's hope that works out.

Regarding an earlier comment, The Rialto really is the only venue in which some kinds of acts can entertain their Tucson fans. Have a look at the Rialto calendar and try to picture all those acts and their fans at the casino, Fox Theatre or Centennial Hall. But the "go to Phoenix instead" issue is moot because acts that perform at the Rialto frequently perform in the Phoenix metro area before or after they play the Rialto, anyway.

And regarding an even earlier comment, Hotel Congress is unquestionably the most successful commercial venture in downtown, and only keeps getting more important. It's community central as far as I concerned, and I thank the Oserans almost every time I see them.

That said, I think the Rialto Theatre would be an irreplaceable loss for music and its fans in Tucson, and a lost opportunity for the development of the amazing arts/entertainment/retail strip we'll have once the trolley links 4th Avenue and Congress.

Incidentally, all the Rialto staff have been unfailingly nice to me every time I've been there.

This is a complicated matter, and there is a lot of outright disinformation in the posts above. Responding to all of the misstatements would take too long, and I’m not sure it really matters.

First, a mea culpa: Yes, I largely failed in my sincere efforts to rehab the Rialto block. In hindsight, there are many things I would have done differently, but for anyone who actually knows me, I think it’s obvious I gave it my all. I am far more interested in what happens next and in moving the Rialto Theatre and Downtown forward.

A few important facts:

• I didn’t “sell” the Rialto block to Don Martin in July 2008. He exercised an aggressive buy/sell provision in our LLC’s operating agreement that enabled him to make me an offer, giving me 30 days to match it or accept it. I tried mightily to raise the necessary capital, but failed at the last moment to raise the $1.7 million needed. It was a power play by Martin that was months in the making.

• During the course of our partnership Martin became increasingly obsessed with owning the Rialto Theatre. I believe this obsession continues to drive the current drama.

Initially I supported the notion that our company should consolidate all Rialto block property, including the Theatre, because it seemed like a way to accelerate improvements to the Theatre. We engaged with the City, the Foundation and attorneys to try to work it out in late 2007.

But the more we discussed this option, it became clear that Martin didn’t care about the mission of the Theatre Foundation, which is to be the steward of the historic venue and passionately provide the best quality programming for the benefit of the entire community.

He told me (and others) outright on several occasions that he didn’t “give a shit” about our mission. One of his ideas was to turn the Rialto Theatre into a private “millionaire’s” club.

• In a meeting with the Rialto Theatre Foundation board of directors in April 2008, he made another pitch to buy the Theatre, telling the board that he intended to immediately demolish the Green Room/Office building on Broadway to provide more parking.

• The eviction notice was served after negotiations for a month-to-month lease broke down. Martin and Stiteler were demanding nearly $45,000 in back rent for spaces Martin had offered for free multiple times. They were also demanding $15/square foot for a boarded up storefront and a building that was uninhabitable until the Foundation improved it at its own expense.

• We are requesting that the City purchase a mere 4,000 square feet at FAIR MARKET VALUE. We proposed in earlier negotiations to Stiteler and Martin that they could own the air rights above the space if they ever wanted to develop property along Broadway.

• A green room, however humble, is an essential facility for the traveling artists. Pollstar has ranked the Rialto Theatre in the top 100 club venues worldwide, despite our humble accommodations. Part of the building is an unfinished storeroom, lacking heating and cooling. Our staff works exceedingly long and stressful hours. We worked hard to create a functional and creative office space in a formerly bombed out building. It’s not a luxury but a necessity.

We have long-range plans and short-term goals of improving our concessions services, our dismal restrooms, circulation patterns and the overall patron experience. We have come far from our beginnings only four years ago, but we have much work to do.

As recent history demonstrates, it is true that the Rialto Theatre is dependent on the support of the adjacent property owner. Absent this support, the City must acquire this small amount of property and enable the Rialto Theatre to continue its successful operation and get on with its next phase of improvements.

—Douglas Biggers

“ I didn’t “sell” the Rialto block to Don Martin in July 2008. He exercised an aggressive buy/sell provision in our LLC’s operating agreement that enabled him to make me an offer, giving me 30 days to match it or accept it. I tried mightily to raise the necessary capital, but failed at the last moment to raise the $1.7 million needed. It was a power play by Martin that was months in the making.”

Thanks for the parsing Mr. Biggers, now lets examine how much of a victim the above makes you. Your Limited Liability Company contained a provision that would allow one partner to force a buy or a SELL from the other. This was done, to a tune of $1.7 million and you lost. Boohoo. Did you not know about the provision, and whether the answer is a yes or a no, can you not see how its impossible to join you in feeling sorry for yourself? Finally, on the money that was received in this SALE, why not put it into creating a new green room in one of the cluttered and disused portions of the theatre? Instead you now wish to use the city as a goon squad with the repugnant weapon of eminent domain, in a desperate hope to reverse the car out of the ditch you put it in.

Wow. Downtown Julie Brown posting at 1:59 am, 2:53 am, 3;16 am and 4:13 am. I think you need to breathe deep and get a life. Your angst over Doug and his crew is a little over the top don't you think?

"Wow. Downtown Julie Brown posting at 1:59 am, 2:53 am, 3;16 am and 4:13 am. I think you need to breathe deep and get a life. Your angst over Doug and his crew is a little over the top don't you think?"

Oh gosh, what a shame to wake up to this lame protest without a partner. I guess we'll never know "downtown julie brown" and what warrants deep breathing and getting a life, because the Weekly evidently has helpful standards that don't allow one to make an angsty case against "Doug and his crew"so we're told, (according to the weekly, community newspaper - or azghostdog - so hard to tell who's who) by the standards of pro-Bigger's partisanship. Credit your readers with enough intelligence to make up their own minds about the ugly machinations over the Rialto block. If someone has made baseless charges it would be nice to see a show of guts, by displaying the charge and allowing for rebuttal. A clownish display warrants ridicule and laughter if it truly is such, but a grotesque little moraliste, well . . . as a singer once put it: Oh my kindly friend the censor this can not be what you mean, to distill the very nature of obscene.

Agreed Mr. Boegle, why on earth would Downtown Julie Brown do such a thing?

Mr. Biggers’ candor and willingness to participate in this type of public discourse is appreciated. However, his response here doesn’t do much to clear up some of the bigger questions and further proves my point that this conflict is as much about doling out retribution ( by BOTH parties) as it is anything else. What’s more, the spotlight and scrutiny brought about by the Rialto’s public pleas and foul-crying has raised even more questions that perhaps Mr. Biggers could shed some light on.

First , as marzipan pointed out, the buy/sell clause in your contract with Martin was a two way street that you signed off on when you formed a legal partnership with him. The fact that he beat you to the punch may be unfortunate for you, but that seems to be the way the game of land development and “big business” is played. Buyouts, power plays, leveraged buyouts etc are all part of the risk of doing business, and if you didn’t do due diligence in an effort to protect yourself, you cannot cry foul when things don’t end up in your favor. If, as many of the articles written at the time of your purchase of the block claim, you paid $800,000 for the block and were bought out for 1.7 million ( I may be speaking out of school here, I’m assuming the partnership was 50/50), you made quite a profit. Again, I don’t presume to know the details of the partnership, but based on figures reported in the media, one can only assume that you made a good turn around for a building that is, in your words, “…a gutted shell with a boarded-up storefront…” While you may not benefit directly from controlling the real estate you profited from should the city acquire it, I’m sure that increased concessions for the theatre will, down the line, equate to more money for the Foundation which in turn would surely have an affect on your salary. Though some would make the argument that calling you out on the carpet for your inability to deliver success to the Rialto block misses the point, I would posit that the current state of affairs at the Rialto is inextricably linked to the history of the block.

Reference these two articles:

http://www.downtowntucson.org/downtowntucsonan/oct04/vitalsigns.html

http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2009/06/26/news/doc4a45162986976503994525.txt

If I'm not mistaken, the development of the block and the stewardship of the Rialto were intended to be linked, with Rio Nuevo requiring Biggers et al to have rehabbed the block within five years in exchange for control of the city owned Rialto. That five years is up.


The second issue I have with Biggers relates to this statement:

" In a meeting with the Rialto Theatre Foundation board of directors in April 2008, he made another pitch to buy the Theatre, telling the board that he intended to immediately demolish the Green Room/Office building on Broadway to provide more parking."

This is problematic for two or three reasons. First, if you were aware of this as far back as April of last year, why would you invest tens of thousands of dollars in property that you knew to be already in danger, or at the very least contentious? ( By the way, I'm rather dubious of the amount of money spent on the rehab of the building in question. In one Star report, the amount is reported as $50,000, in others the sum is much higher, sometimes reported as "nearly 80,000.) Second, if you were aware of Martins less than savory intentions for the theatre back in April of 2008, why, in December did you put your support behind DTDC, saying, in essence that it was the only thing that made sense for the theatre? I hate to use a stale, overused cliche, but you sir are a flip-flopper. In July 2008 you were against Martin, in December you backed him and now you are against him again. It seems rather obvious that you simply want to go wherever the piles of cash and potential for prestige are.

Third, you stated that Martin verbally agreed to allow Rialto use of the spaces in question for free. It seems odd that knowing his intentions, you did draw up or lease or contract in order to protect yourself. Why would you take a guy you dont trust for his word?


This web is a very complicated one indeed, and I think that is the way certain parties like it. If too much light is shed on the subject, the general public will see who has their hands in others pockets, and I think Biggers and company are banking on the fact that citizens have a limited memory and short spans of attention. This mess has very deeper political involvement and graver ramifications than the success of Rialtos growth, it is about more than 4,000 square feet.

Tucson, it's time to demand accountability and transparency. Encourage the city council to stop further subsidy of the Rialto Foundation, an organization that touts 2 million dollar revenue for fiscal year 2008, but still doesnt have to pay a lick of rent for any of the space it uses, and is now demanding more.

PS.
Just so you all know "ghost dog" is doug biggers ("anonymously")

The discussion, such as it is, could be placed in context. So far that hasn't happened.

Mostly it's all about triggering editor emergencies...

Ghostdog isn't me. I spoke to him this morning and I know I was having a telephone conversation with someone other than myself. I won't ID him, since he prefers to comment anonymously. He is someone with major Downtown connections who knows what he's talking about, unlike other obsessed posters on this blog.

yr humble servant,

Douglas Biggers

Red Star,

This thread is actually very much about "context." This paper is so far in the tank for Mr. Biggers, that its taken a few angry citizens to say "not so fast" and point to both history and the flawed arguments of he and his supporters, things that real journalists, who strive for truth rather than buttressing power, actually relish doing. Alas, Mr. Biggers is probably right and this probably won't "really matter" as the herd of cronies and uninformed people have been firing off form protest letters and are now getting ready to bleat obediently tomorrow at the meeting for their good shepherd. How sad for Tucson.

This thread is unbelievable. The vile and personal attacks are pretty amazing. And I am not Doug Biggers and in fact have had my own issues with Doug in the past. But the facts are simple.

We need the Rialto Theater and the Hotel Congress to continue to be the seeds that help reviatalize the Congress Street Entertainment District. Doug and his crew have done something no one has done downtown and that is to create a top 100 venue known nationally that brings thousands of people to Congress Street. That cannot be argued against and that is what needs to be protected.

Now I have finally had it. These attacks on Doug Biggers and the efforts of the Rialto Theatre are undeserved and unfounded. You should be ashamed, and as to the postings by marzipan and Chuck E -- I am concerned that these past posts seem to have at-hand some ill-comprehended pieces of 'information' that is chronically present as 'fact'. Who am I? My name is Tom Powers, past Board President of the Congress Street Historic Theatres Foundation, past partner in the Rialto Block, and contributor to the re-opening of the the taxpayer owned asset, the Rialto Theatre. Questions? go ahead.

If the attacks on the Rialto management seem "vile", then I'm honestly sorry, but the use of eminent domain, to essentially hand back a property to someone who lost it in a fair business deal just seems wrong to me. And I don't see why criticism of the management should be off limits when the block has undeniably sat there derelict under their watch. Undoubtedly you bring a great deal of inside knowledge to all of this Mr. Powers, lets hear the arguments.

The Rialto provides Tucson with an actual venue to enjoy MUSIC!!! Beyond the political bickering (and plenty of false propaganda out there) I want to continue to see cool bands come to Tucson. Without the Rialto and Club Congress, the music scene would SUCK! Really people, let this be about the music! Because of the people standing behind the Rialto and fighting for a great venue to see awesome shows, Tucson is finally showing up on the map as a diverse place to live. Let's keep it GROWING and THRIVING! Support the Rialto. Support economic growth. Support artists. Support having something to actually do on the weekends!

People were moved? Could be. But when the Rialto posts on its Twitter page inviting people to come down and support the theater and then afterward come to the theatre for a free beer. I think people could be moved to come down and get a free beer. I think there are a lot of people that would be motivated to do a whole lot of things if they would get a free beer afterward.
http://twitter.com/TheRialtoTucson
"Attend City Council Study Session on July 7 at 2 pm to support the Theatre. Come over to the Rialto Theatre afterward for a free beer!
8:04 PM Jul 3rd from web"

Good grief. The free beer offer was a joke.

Doug's right. I went looking for some free beer, and I couldn't find any.
Tom "I'm thirsty" Powers

I recently relocated to Tucson from Nashville where I spent many years as a tour manager for artists such as Emmylou Harris, Lucinda Williams, Kim Richey and a bunch more.
In regards to the 'green room' issues, we would rather stay on the bus out back.
There, problem solved.