http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2009/07/03/rock-the-council-save-the-rialto Comments On: Rock The Council: Save The Rialto! by Jim Nintzel en-us Copyright 2009 Tucson Weekly. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Tucson Weekly readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Tucson Weekly. wil@desert.net (Tucson Weekly Webmaster) Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0700 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss In regards to the 'green room' issues, we would rather stay on the bus out back.
There, problem solved.
Posted by trailboss]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:10:57 -0700 Tucson Weekly Tom "I'm thirsty" Powers
Posted by tompowers]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:20:13 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by doug]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:39:22 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by sseigel]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:59:12 -0700 Tucson Weekly 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"

Posted by joejournalist]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:44:56 -0700 Tucson Weekly
Posted by Adam Borowitz]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:50:26 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by SVox]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:06:39 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by marzipan]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:29:54 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by tompowers]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:05:14 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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.
Posted by azghostdog]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:01:46 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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.
Posted by marzipan]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:31:27 -0700 Tucson Weekly
yr humble servant,

Douglas Biggers
Posted by doug]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:47:10 -0700 Tucson Weekly
Mostly it's all about triggering editor emergencies...
Posted by Red Star]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:06:02 -0700 Tucson Weekly
To Downtown Julie and others: As long as you continue to post under a fake e-mail address, your posts will get pulled. Go get some silly Yahoo address if you want to comment here. That's all. It's really simple. Thank you all for reading!
Posted by Jimmy Boegle]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:48:21 -0700 Tucson Weekly Just so you all know "ghost dog" is doug biggers ("anonymously")
Posted by Chuck E.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:46:20 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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.

Posted by Chuck E.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:30:24 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by marzipan]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:59:25 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by Jimmy Boegle]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:41:14 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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.
Posted by marzipan]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:53:38 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by Jimmy Boegle]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:07:23 -0700 Tucson Weekly Posted by azghostdog]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:10:25 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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.
Posted by marzipan]]> Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:40:40 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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
Posted by doug]]> Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:12:48 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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.
Posted by LindaRay64]]> Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:03:53 -0700 Tucson Weekly
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?
Posted by conch]]> Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:08:29 -0700 Tucson Weekly