PERFORMANCE ANXIETY
The Rialto Theatre Foundation won a battle last week when Pima
County Superior Court Judge Michael Miller ruled that the
nonprofit organization had previously worked out a verbal agreement
with landlord Don Martin that required Martin to give the
foundation 60 days to move out of spaces the Rialto is now using for a
green room, administrative offices and storage.
That means Martin can’t demand the foundation vacate the
administrative space within five days of the verdict, as he had hoped.
As of now, they have to get out by Aug. 18.
But Martin—who appears to be doing all of the talking since
his partner, developer Scott Stiteler, left the stage earlier
this summer—still wants the Rialto Theatre Foundation out of the
offices and is resisting the idea of selling any property in the Rialto
block to the city or the Rio Nuevo District, which already owns the
theater, which is leased to the Rialto Foundation.
Unless the city can acquire that property, the Rialto Theatre will
have problems making improvements in the future—like, for
example, better bathrooms or a lounge off the lobby.
But Martin, who has tried to take control of the theater in the
past, sees all of those people going to shows and wants to figure out
how to get a piece of the action for himself. And helping the Rialto
improve itself only makes it harder for him to take it over in the
future.
As we’ve said before, the Rialto Foundation has brought hundreds of
thousands of people downtown to enjoy hundreds of bands from around the
world over the last four years. That doesn’t only improve the quality
of life for the people who get to enjoy an evening of live music; it
also helps the nearby bars and restaurants that folks visit before and
after the shows.
Count us among those who are skeptical that Martin would have the
same kind of success in running the theater. Hell, given his thin
record in the development business, we’re a little skeptical that he
can get anything done with the portion of the Rialto block he owns.
Granted, we’re biased, given that Doug Biggers, the Rialto’s
executive director, is the founder and former editor and publisher of
the Tucson Weekly. But really now: If you can’t fight for rock
‘n’ roll in this town, what’s left to fight for?
While the majority of the City Council has backed the Rialto
Foundation in recent months, members appear reluctant to use the power
of eminent domain to force Martin to sell the space to the city. City
Manager Mike Letcher has advised against condemnation, worried
that it would send the wrong message to potential downtown developers.
It’s a line that’s been echoed by Ward 6 Councilwoman Nina Trasoff,
whose refusal to work with the Rialto Foundation earlier this year set
the stage for the current mess.
Evidently, Nina and Mike figure it’s better to send the message that
people who have managed to make a success of something in the Rio Nuevo
redevelopment disaster are expendable.
The council is now dishing off the job of negotiating with Martin to
Glenn Lyons of the Downtown Tucson Partnership, and
Anne-Marie Russell of the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities
District Board and the Museum of Contemporary Art. We hope they have
some negotiating savvy, given that they have less power than the City
Council.
This will be an especially big test for Lyons, who is supposed to
take the lead in the city’s downtown-revitalization efforts.
IN OTHER DOWNTOWN NEWS …
An interesting twist occurred this week in the ongoing saga of the
former Volvo dealership property on Broadway Boulevard.
The city-owned land, valued at $1.9 million, was originally slated
to be given to aforementioned developers Scott Stiteler and
Don Martin in exchange for promised improvements to land they
own downtown.
However, that deal has since fallen through, and now, three
nonprofit groups—the Rialto Theatre Foundation, the Warehouse
Arts Management Organization, and Mission Gardens—are proposing
that the city give the land to them.
Look for this idea to be discussed at next week’s City Council
meeting, on Wednesday, Aug. 5.
ELECTRIC AVENUE
To ensure that it can cover the growing demand for electricity,
Tucson Electric Power needs to run new high-voltage lines between its
Tucson Substation near Sixth Street and 11th Avenue over to the DeMoss
Petrie Substation at Grant Road near Interstate 10.
One potential route takes the line straight through Dunbar/Spring, a
rebounding neighborhood that’s already lucky enough to have 46-kilowatt
lines on poles that are close to 90 feet tall, running straight down
11th Avenue. TEP’s new line, which will require even fatter poles that
are 80 to 110 feet high, could fall in the same corridor, which also
passes through the Blue Moon and San Ignacio neighborhoods and past
Richey Elementary School.
The nearby residents, as you might expect, aren’t thrilled about the
fact that the new line could be passing through their neighborhood.
They’re pushing for an alternative route that would redirect the line
through industrial areas along the Interstate 10 and the railroad
tracks.
“We feel it’s not appropriate for residential areas because of the
potential health impact, the property value impact and the visual
impact,” says Ian Johnson, who lives right around the corner
from the Tucson Substation. “We think there are other and better
options.”
Johnson and his neighbors have organized under the name Citizens for
Safe Powerlines and set up a Web site, safepowerlines.org, to press their
case. They’re suggesting a route that follows an existing 138-kilovolt
line that runs west of the Sixth Street substation. The line could then
run parallel to I-10.
TEP spokesman Joe Salkowski says several different routes
remain under consideration. He expects the utility compnay to deliver a
plan to the Arizona Corporation Commission for approval sometime before
October.
Last week, Pima County Supervisor Richard Elías weighed in with a letter to TEP, citing the large size of the poles,
the potential dangers and the impact on property values.
“I urge your company to place this line underground or select a
preferred route for submission to the Arizona Corporation Commission
that follows the Union Pacific Railroad, or Interstate 10, and that
impacts industrial areas instead of residences,” Elias wrote.
ATTENDANCE ISSUE
When The Skinny reported last week on the Sierra Club’s annual
report card on the legislative session, we mentioned that Southern
Arizona Republicans got failing grades on the report card as a result
of supporting bad environmental legislation or missing votes.
State Rep. Frank Antenori took issue with our coverage,
pointing out that Southern Arizona Republicans had a nearly spotless
history of showing up to vote on the environmental bills cited in the
Sierra Club’s report card. He also complained that many Democrats
missed the votes that the Sierra Club graded.
Antenori is right—while some lawmakers saw their grades
lowered because they missed some environmental votes, Southern Arizona
Republicans earned their failing grades from the Sierra Club by
straight-up voting to restrict regulations, shift funds away from
conservation and otherwise undermine efforts to protect the
environment.
Find early and late-breaking Skinny at The Range, our daily
dispatch.
This article appears in Jul 30 – Aug 5, 2009.
Don Martin is a jerk.
Jim, Jim, Jim,
You just can’t shoot straight can you. Once again you’re either “deliberately deceptive” or sloppy. I’ll let you choose which category you fall into.
Your story did not say “Supporting bad environmental legislation OR missing votes.”
You clearly used the word AND:
“Among the local legislators who failed on the report card (by supporting bad environmental legislation AND missing votes): Al Melvin and Jonathan Paton in the Senate, and David Gowan, Frank Antenori, David Stevens and Vic Williams in the House.”
Unless you went to the Bill Clinton School of Journalism, where the definition of the word “is” varies based on the political climate, you clearly change the meaning of a sentence by substituting the word “and” for “or.”
Again Jim, while I respect your political difference of opinion, I can’t tolerate you deliberately misinforming readers. You have plenty of news to cover and write about to stoke the political fire of your brand of journalism, there’s no need for you to be “deceptive.”
Frank Antenori
Jim, please be careful. What Frank really point out is that you wrote the story before you checked the facts. It’s the way of the UA trained journalists, I guess, but wouldn’t it be nice if someone would rise above the liberal muck?
Come on Frank. Quit pretending that people give a damn about whether or not the Weekly is treating you and the other Repubs fairly. All of you have become the lapdogs of the Maricopa Crazies. There is nothing positive you can point to that you have done for southern Arizona except to endanger the only means for keeping some of our state sales tax at home to give downtown a chance. The people in your district are going to wise up to you and your Repub partners in crime. I believe you guys are trying to turn southern Arizona into southern Alabama because their politics suit you better.
I do have one thing to say that will make you happy. This voter doesn’t consider you a Tucsonan so I’m with you in your belief that you also don’t consider yourself to be a Tucsonan. Your politics are so screwed up we won’t claim you.
You’ll never go any farther than where you are now your district. So sit down, shut up and try to be a good boy and at least try to listen more than you talk. You’re starting to sound like Russell Pierce…
Frank, I think the way you hang on my every word is adorable. Even my mom doesn’t pay as much attention to my work as you do!
That said, I’m not sure, in the context of the above piece, what you’re complaining about. I clearly stated that you and your GOP colleagues did not miss votes. I’m at a loss at how that is misleading anyone.
The larger point of the story is that you had a lousy voting record when it came to environmental issues that were important to the Sierra Club–which you haven’t disputed.
How did I know that your Mother wasn’t checking your homework? It shows.