Interesting article from someone that wants to take a public stand against another Taylor action.
Fired park chief says she questioned Taylor by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Sunday, June 28, 2009
6/28/2009 4:15:59 AM
Challenging Mayor Kathy Taylor on the funding of Tulsa Zoo Friends' sea-lion exhibit was likely the final action that led to her recent dismissal, former Park Director Nancy Atwater says.
Just before completing her one-year probation period, Atwater said, she was let go last Monday with only the explanation that she and the city "were not a good fit."
Atwater told the Tulsa World that the action came a few days after she questioned Taylor on funding for the $5 million exhibit during a staff meeting on capital needs.
Susan Neal, who oversees the Park Department, would only say the dismissal involved more than one issue. She said Atwater "is talented" and wished her success.
Atwater said it wasn't her first time to question the administration or to initiate action on park issues during her nearly 10 months on the job.
"I'm outspoken," she said. "I would communicate with the administration, get no feedback, and then I would proceed, and that was my mistake."
Atwater said when she was recruited to be Tulsa's park director she was told the city was looking for "a self-directed leader who could think outside of the box."
"Apparently, that's not what they wanted," she said.
"I'm much better in the private sector than the public; it's more honest, more flexible. The private world is not ethically repugnant," she said.
Neal said no one from the city has acted unethically.
Earlier this month on Atwater and Neal's recommendation, the Park Board voted to defer construction of the sea-lion exhibit for six months to monitor the economy. The project funding includes $3 million from Zoo Friends and $2 million from the city's third-penny sales tax program.
In the city's current economic condition, Atwater said she expressed concerns about where the city would find the $200,000 a year needed to operate the exhibit.
Taylor now wants the Park Board to reconsider its vote next month.
Neal said the mayor got more input from Zoo Friends showing the benefits of the low construction prices and that operational costs would not be needed for two years.
Keegan Young, Zoo Friends executive director, said the organization has a construction company ready to start the project. He also said Zoo Friends is committed to funding the operational costs that the city can't pay.
The nonprofit Zoo Friends provides services for the zoo including fundraising, marketing, collection of gate admissions, concessions, gift shop, and guest services. It has 28 employees at the zoo and funds six city zoo posts the city can't afford. The city has 82 employees at the zoo.
Atwater said she also became at odds with Zoo Friends as the city made severe budget cuts and she tried to further reduce the revenues that Zoo Friends receives from the city for its cut of gate admissions.
Overall, Zoo Friends makes a lot of money generated at the zoo and very little goes back into the zoo operations, she said.
"I suggested we reduce the funds instead of bodies," she said.
"It's an awkward situation. Zoo Friends employees at the zoo get bonuses, and city employees get furloughs," Atwater said
Young said there are no bonuses, but his employees will get pay raises.
Atwater also questions why the city hasn't sought bids for some of the contract services provided by Zoo Friends. Neal said she did not know that answer but the city is in the process of renegotiating the Zoo Friends contract, which will clarify its roles at the zoo.
Atwater said it's been frustrating watching the administration "systematically dismantling" the Park Department, leaving it without resources to function properly.
She said privatizing of the golf courses and Gilcrease Museum were successful, but, "what will become of the zoo, Oxley Nature Center and the recreation programs?"
Neal said the Park Department's budget struggle is not the current administration's fault and has been there for at least a decade. It's a national problem that all Park Departments face due to their difficulty in competing for funds with public safety, infrastructure and utility needs, she said.
Atwater said it will take the "leadership of the next administration to define the future of the Parks Department because this one hasn't. That's the elephant in the room. Are we going to have a Park Department or not?"
A master plan for the city's Park Department, which got under way in January, will provide a road map for the future. Public input on the plan will begin next month. What I find interesting in the article is the following:
- Atwater questioned the the timing and feasibility of constructing and maintaining a new exhibit during tough economic times and is subsequently dismissed. Susan Neal at the time also made the same recommendation as Atwater. Taylor now says she wants the Park Board to reconsider the vote.
- Zoo Friends says they already have a construction company ready to start the project. As a 501(3)(c) entity, Zoo Friends is not required to seek bids for projects, something that could help tremendously in this economic climate. They are however, allowed to utilize public tax dollars for such endeavours.
- Atwater has come out and publicly called the administration "ethically repugnant,' quite a statement from someone what was hired by them not a year before and in the article is described as a 'talented' by Susan Neal.
- Atwater publicly raises her concern over being terminated based on her quesitoning Mayor Taylor on this fiscal issue. Susan Neal says there were other factors but offers none.
- Atwater makes the claim that Zoo Friends "makes a lot of money generated at the zoo and very little goes back into the zoo operations"...in FYE 06/2007, Zoo Friends had a budget surplus of $1.15 million.
- "Atwater also questions why the city hasn't sought bids for some of the contract services provided by Zoo Friends. Neal said she did not know that answer" - There's always a lot that Susan Neal never seems to know the answer to eventhough she is over the departments information is sought from. Just watch any of the City Council meetings she has been involved in.
- $2 million of funding for this new exhibit is supposed to come from the City's Third Penny Sales Tax Program...a program that for the next fiscal year shows a massive budget shortfall resulting in the reduction of services, positions and furlough days. If the City is scrounging for every necessary penny it needs to operate, why would we be investing $2 million of the needed revenue into a project like this now? Why not postpone until times are better? Or is Taylor trying to ensure a certain construction company can remain solvent through this economic downturn with taxpayer funded projects? Isnt this Pork?
- Atwater makes one last final statement that may very well paint a picture of things to come and we are left wondering what will be the outcome..."Atwater said it's been frustrating watching the administration "systematically dismantling" the Park Department, leaving it without resources to function properly"
[/list]
[/list]
[/list]
Kudos to our Mayor for finally working to keep project costs down or eliminated when it appears such projects may lower the future funding necessary for our safety priorities. Perhaps, the parks department should be privatized through forming a foundation or trust. Between the Warren's and Kaiser's interests in contributing time and money, this is one department best removed from the city priority list. Most parks were donated as a trade off for residential development.
Nice try Nancy. Don't let the door smack you in the butt on the way out...
Kudos FOTD? Really? Perhaps you missed the part of the article that said it was Nancy Atwater (along with Susan Neal) that recommended the Tulsa Parks Board postpone the project and they agreed? Did you also miss part where it stated your beloved Kathy Taylor is hoping that the Parks Board reconsider the vote at the next meeting to proceed with the project and spend that $2 million that you say is needed for public safety? Wait, did you even read the article?
We are facing a significant budget shortfall, one that will force a reduction in services, materials and manpower through 8 furlough days of City employees but Mayor Kathy Taylor can justify spending $2 million on a seal lion exhibit that comes from the same Third Penny sales tax revenue that is being impacted?
How on earth can she or Susan Neal justify this? This is a slap in the face to every hard working City employee that will have to take a reduction so we can have a new exhibit a year or two earlier. We can wait until times are better for a new exhibit...we can not wait on things like mowing, trash, public safety, grafitti, etc.
Just to make it easier for FOTD and others:
Earlier this month on Atwater and Neal's recommendation, the Park Board voted to defer construction of the sea-lion exhibit for six months to monitor the economy. The project funding includes $3 million from Zoo Friends and $2 million from the city's third-penny sales tax program.
In the city's current economic condition, Atwater said she expressed concerns about where the city would find the $200,000 a year needed to operate the exhibit.
Taylor now wants the Park Board to reconsider its vote next month.
Perhaps the 200,000 will come from the surpluses that Zoo Friends is accumulating? I understand Taylor's and FOTD's concept that labor and material costs are low right now so why not capitalize on them. However, unless ongoing costs are budgeted through Zoo friends, it is a false economic gain.
BTW, those parks were not necessarily donations. They were requirements of the law at the time. A certain amount of park or public lands was required with each development approval. Over time such requirements as sidewalks, curbs, parks etc. has become more or less voluntary. Now, these things are shouldered by neighborhood associations and foundation donations.
I for one do not look forward to the privatization of parks. Kaiser and Zarrow may be great guys but their tastes are not always the public's taste and the potential for abuse is great. Look no farther than the RPA and its foundation buddies who had blunted development for decades till Kaiser and Warren ponied up. They jettisoned their "friends" foundation when the two interests diverged. She may have needed the boot, but one should take note of her frustration.
She was a bad fit for the job. She argued in public meetings, attacked the partners in the zoo, and was uncooperative during budget meetings. They combined mowing operations of parks with the department responsible for mowing right-of-ways and she acted as if they had destroyed her department.
I say kudos for getting rid of her before she became entrenched in civil service and a liability for future administrations.
Third penny items are voted on and approved by the people. Thus, once approved, they are required to be completed. No one has the authority to 'just say no' when it comes to third penny projects. If so, I would think it would take a re-vote of the people.
Projects might get postponed if third penny comes in under projections, but I don't believe they can be canceled.
Quote from: Wilbur on June 28, 2009, 01:57:09 PM
Third penny items are voted on and approved by the people. Thus, once approved, they are required to be completed. No one has the authority to 'just say no' when it comes to third penny projects. If so, I would think it would take a re-vote of the people.
Projects might get postponed if third penny comes in under projections, but I don't believe they can be canceled.
Yes. But it can be replaced in the list of priorities. Use the funds to form a foundation. Combine all entities like Zoo Friends etc under one private/public Trust. Add a line item to city bills.....shift the tax burden. Like trash, let there be a direct charge for mowing and maintenance of the parks by outsourced companies. City provides water for free.
So Michael, she was a bad fit and they waited until now to can her? Just before her one-year probation? They could have done that the first time she 'attacked' Zoo Friends or their directors, especially given the influence members of that Board hold.
Neither the Tulsa World, nor any other news organization, has ever reported on Atwater's attitude being out of line. Just because she chose to challenge the status quo and ask pertinent questions in light of a tough economy, troubled budget, etc. as a good Director should, that makes her a bad fit?
I suppose it does when Taylor obviously wants the new sea lion exhibit started at the taxpayer's expense of $2 million out of the already strangled Third Penny revenues. I suppose all City services should defer to this added extravagance eh?
I would have raised all kinds of grief if I were the Parks Director and I was told they were moving mowing of the Parks to the PWD when funds arent available for them to perform the job they already have. I would question with great skepticism the amount of control that 'charitable' organizations have on City policies and procedures relating to Parks. Its one thing to be a charitable organization that wants to work hand with a department and raise funds for various park purposes, its quite another to hold those efforts hostage ,so to speak, so as to influence policy and decisions.
Where is the justification in spending $2 million of desperately needed funds for other departments and services? Where is the justification in spending this while City employees are being forced to take furlough days? What is the harm in waiting (as was recommended by both Atwater and Susan Neal , who by the way is Taylor's voice on the Park's Board) 6 months to determine the state of the economy and its effect on the budget?
Scares the bejesus out of me when people think Board, Trust and Authority Directors should just keep their mouths shut and go with what someone wants despite the ramifications it could have for the larger interest of the citizens, or worse yet, do what they want with impunity.
If you dont have the cajones to occassionally ruffle feathers and stand up for your beliefs and the interests of the public at large over individual or influential interests, then dont bother seeking appointment for the position.
I think we need City employees working to repair streets, man the 9-1-1 call centers, provide public safety through Fire and Police, mow the grass on rights of ways, abate grafitti and be near a phone when a citizen has a concern of need more than we need a sea lion exhibit right now. That can wait.
You can Monday morning quarterback all you want. I am not going to get in a debate with you about mowing or sea lions, because you have a history of anonymous attacks and relish in attacking good people.
I knew she was in trouble when the last couple of months of her employment I kepy hearing about her. It was no secret that she became very difficult to work with. She made a bunch of enemies and proved herself the wrong fit for that job.
This is pointless because rather than discuss and debate, which means answering questions poised, you Michael choose to ignore and complain.
Its not Monday morning quarterbacking on my part. I agree the Mayor has the right to hire and fire such positions. I do however, question the reason behind this termination and its timing given the issues illustrated in the article. Especially in light of Taylor's comments that she now wants the Parks Board to reconsider its earlier vote to postpone the sea lion project. There was no other basis for her termination of than 'it wasnt a good fit.' Sorry, thats not good enough...why wasnt it a good fit? How can they make that statement and then go on to say she's 'talented.'
But all that aside, and your failure to comment even once on the questions I posited, lets talk about who personally attacks whom. In your previous post you essentially attacked Ms. Atwater...stating she was a bad fit, argued at budget meetings, attacked Zoo Friends. What qualifies you to define a 'bad fit'? Did you attend all the meetings she was involved in? How was it she could make a recommendation and have it approved by a majority of the Parks Board if she was such a bad fit?
Yes.
You want to take the view of the fired employee who tries to save face by saying it was political, fine.
I worked with her (and the three people in her job before that) and I think Tulsa Parks are going to be better off under different leadership. I also think that her attitude was poor and the Mayor waited till after the budget to make the change.
Frankly I think its a shame and a waste to be building a sea lion exhibit at the zoo. We have a nice little "starter aquarium" which would be greatly improved by having a few more nice exhibits. I was just at Disneys Animal Kingdom in Florida. Absolutely incredible, a wonderful attraction.... not a sea lion or fish tank in sight.
Its yet another example of how we tend to half donkey things, with a little of this and that scattered around. But if we were to plan ahead and focus our limited resources and funds we could create some great stuff, aka, "critical mass" for some truly wonderful area attractions.
I dont think anyone here could truly argue against the notion that it would be better for the region, the city, and yes even ultimately the zoo, to take that 5 mill and add the sea lion exhibit to the aquarium there in Jenks. You know danged well that would be true.
Also for a couple million you could do a LOT of wonderful improvements to our zoo. Last time I was at the zoo,,, well again, at the Animal Kingdom a couple weeks ago,,, it was sunny and HOT! lol. I have been to the zoo here on such days as well. But the difference was that the Animal Kingdom had lots of comfortable shady areas aaaall over the place. They used covered walkways, bridges, etc not just as shady areas or to keep you dry if it rained etc. but also as aesthetic features with educational and entertainment potential. I remembered walking one stretch at the zoo thinking,,, wouldnt it be great to have a covered walkway of wood and thatch between these two areas. Structures, especially themed ones, not only serve a practical purpose, but can act as educational material showing how the flora, fauna, and environment impacted human culture and building materials. Artifacts, interesting info signs, etc, can be hung and attached to them. I thought of how neat it would be to have a large, artificial rock outcropping with arches and tunnels leading to yet another area. Again, acting a another welcome spot of shade and shelter from heat, rain and wind. Soooo many wonderful things could be done for a couple mill that would greatly improve the zoo, its level of comfort, entertainment potential, its appearance, and educational components. A LOT more than a single sea lion exhibit. Which again, would better serve us all going in at the aquarium.
I think the zoo is lacking in a vision that will sell. And dont give me some bull about "thats not what the zoo should be about",,, hogwash. Every animal there would be better served if the zoo were a greater attraction pulling in big bucks.
Artist,
You need to revisit the Tulsa zoo. It has plenty of shady areas, great themed exhibits, and termendous educational areas. No, it doesn't have a enormous fake tree, a dinosaur section (talk about hot/no shade), or multi-million dollar theme rides. But it also doesn't cost $75 a day to attend.
I agree the zoo doesn't need a new sea lion exhibit. What I would really like the zoo to create with the money is an indigenous Oklahoma area--perhaps a tall grass prarie area, complete with buffalo and other animals.
Isn't "Tulsa Zoo Friends" the group that does Waltz on the Wild Side......?
Always did like Lou Reed.
The aquarium is really being built in phases. They just completed one expansion and have one underway and two more in the pipe. One calls for a tank even larger than the shark tank (in case you didn't know, the shark tank, at half-a-million gallons, is one of the largest in the U.S.) and the larger tank is for sea turtles which are currently stuck hanging out in undersized tanks next door until money can be raised for the new exhibit. My main complaint is that only one day of the week can you get in after 5pm (closes at 6, last admission 1 hour prior)
The Zoo and the Aquarium do not cooperate like they should. I want to see museum-hopper passes and multi-museum memberships. I would probably go to more places if I could pay one (albeit large) price and get a card that gets me into:
Zoo
Aquarium
Philbrook
Gilcrease
Tulsa Air & Space Museum
You make a good point about a museum-hopper pass. Sure would make sense to cross-promote different attractions, each attraction should not think of others as competition.
Quote from: TheArtist on June 28, 2009, 10:36:54 PM
I dont think anyone here could truly argue against the notion that it would be better for the region, the city, and yes even ultimately the zoo, to take that 5 mill and add the sea lion exhibit to the aquarium there in Jenks. You know danged well that would be true.
You realize the sea lions already live at the Tulsa Zoo and have for over a decade, right? The Tulsa Zoo has been working to replace their 1970's vintage Sea Lion exhibit for several years. And the possibility of taking that $5mil and giving it to the Aquarium won't be possible, since $3,000,000 of it is private donations for the Sea Lion exhibit (including my $).
So your suggestion, to make the zoo better, would be to take the Sea Lions from the Tulsa Zoo and for the City of Tulsa to fund an exhibit at the Jenks Oklahoma Aquarium? I truly do not get that. Addition by subtraction just doesn't work in this instance.
All the fish in the rain forest could be moved, along with the sea otters and flamingos to the aquarium. We could add so much to the zoo by eliminating a few exhibits. Penguins swim too, so out with them. We could get rid of the Elephants (one of the only Male Asian Elephants in captivity) and save even more money. Ditch the Rhinos and save even MORE money. The big cats also cost a great deal of money to maintain. Soon we'd be able to afford to make the zoo really nice.
The aquarium lacks large mammal experience, doesn't have any outdoor facilities, and has no personnel who trains animals. Sorry, the sea lions (Briney and Dorsey) are a popular animals and their shows are usually packed. Their home is the huge outdoor exhibit at the zoo. Neither institution would be better off with that change.
- - -
On a more general notion, from my superficial vantage I agree that the museums in Tulsa need to cooperate more (aquarium, zoo, museum, whatever . . .). I am a member of both the zoo and the aquarium and hold them both as vital parts of Tulsa. I do not believe either would benefit by transferring a major exhibit from one to the other.
The mission of the zoo is to help people of all ages develop a better understanding of the natural world. The means all animals. I'm happy they don't emphasize aquatics now that we have an aquarium doing so, but I'm glad they include it to some extent. To deny that would be leaving a gaping hole in the natural world.
- - -
In re the Zoo at large:
To compare it to the Animal Kingdom is ridiculous. I hope you didn't compare Bell's to Disney World or to Tulsa Air and Space Museum to the Kennedy Space Center. I would hope Animal Kingdom was better for the money behind it and the 8 times more expensive admission.
But I agree, the zoo needs to work on the details. Slowly but surely the zoo is redoing exhibits, adding things, and keeping up what it has. It always has other things to be done and always will. But shortening that list by getting rid of major exhibits isn't a long term solution.
I also agree wholeheartedly that I would like to see the zoo add low-cost exhibits of local interest. This would include both a native species exhibit as well as a farming exhibit. It might sound lame to some people, but visitors might like to see an armadillo, Oklahoma tarantella, scorpion and other such Oklahoma creatures up close. And it wouldn't be hard or take up much space.
The farm exhibit is another one that seems missing at the zoo. We have a decent little petting zoo out there which could be the start of a farming exhibit. Horses, cows, pigs, chickens . . all the normals animals one would find on a farm in Oklahoma. We live in Tulsa, a fairly good sized city, I'm sure too many of our children only see cows as we drive by and know pigs from cartoons. Heck, this exhibit could probably be done real cheap with cooperation from 4-H or a similar program. It seems to fit with the idea of education.
[the Aquarium has a native Oklahoma area that is sizable, as well as the stream exhibit)
Per the aquarium at large:
They seem to have a better long-term plan. The Sea Turtle exhibit will be a great addition, the turtles were a nice easy addition, the Ozark stream (beavers, otters, fish) is great. They area much smaller than the zoo, charge more for entry and don't offer some of the perks (free entry for children groups, free for families of deployed service members, etc.) - but they also have less of a "following" for fund raising. They do a great job.
Not to say they couldn't do better (I could do a similar, more extensive, list for the zoo):
1) Open the restaurant or add one. Something you don't need admission to go to for lunch and/or dinner. Clearly a seafood place and preferably with a huge wall aquarium as part of it. Could be a money maker for them if they leased some space and shared a wall (which would be the aquarium).
2) More of a theme. Currently most of the aquarium is a display case for marine animals. Which is fine, but it isn't set up as a "theme park" atmosphere. The cure can be seen at the Denver Downtown Aquarium (a private aquarium run by Laundry's Seafood), where there are far fewer exhibits but it is setup with a theme feel to it. Trees over head, docks, things like that. The Oklahoma Aquarium does it a little bit, but it is mostly polished concert floors and glass cases.
Denver also uses the space better and wrap exhibits around a big tank in the center such that it feels like you are passing numerous large tanks.
3) More info! Feel free to try and drown me with info on the animal that is on display. They do a satisfactory job of it, but I have to imagine there are curators that want to add more details. Do it! What's more, bring back the sea food information. It was informative and kinda funny.
- - -
SIDE NOTE: how is it that Tulsa doesn't have an oil museum? Or a City Park displaying (non-working) oil equipment? SOMETHING cool reflecting our oil heritage and educational. Many/most people have no idea how a drill rig or pump jack works.
/entire post not really on topic. Sorry.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 29, 2009, 09:11:46 AMOr a City Park displaying (non-working) oil equipment? SOMETHING cool reflecting our oil heritage and educational. Many/most people have no idea how a drill rig or pump jack works.
Haven't you heard the PSA's? Playing on oil field equipment isn't cool, man.
I was waiting for that . . .
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 28, 2009, 07:42:00 PM
Yes.
You want to take the view of the fired employee who tries to save face by saying it was political, fine.
I worked with her (and the three people in her job before that) and I think Tulsa Parks are going to be better off under different leadership. I also think that her attitude was poor and the Mayor waited till after the budget to make the change.
I don't know anything about her or her working relationship with the administration, but just from reading the article I hooked onto what wasn't said (blatently anyway) and how loudly the unsaid seemed to jump out.
Quote
Just before completing her one-year probation period, Atwater said, she was let go last Monday with only the explanation that she and the city "were not a good fit."
Atwater told the Tulsa World that the action came a few days after she questioned Taylor on funding for the $5 million exhibit during a staff meeting on capital needs.
Susan Neal, who oversees the Park Department, would only say the dismissal involved more than one issue. She said Atwater "is talented" and wished her success.
Atwater said it wasn't her first time to question the administration or to initiate action on park issues during her nearly 10 months on the job.
"I'm outspoken," she said. "I would communicate with the administration, get no feedback, and then I would proceed, and that was my mistake."
Atwater said when she was recruited to be Tulsa's park director she was told the city was looking for "a self-directed leader who could think outside of the box."
"Apparently, that's not what they wanted," she said.
Translation: "I disagreed with most of the direction that my boss gave me, and I complained when I wasn't given an immediate response to my input"
Quote
"I'm much better in the private sector than the public; it's more honest, more flexible. The private world is not ethically repugnant," she said.
Translation: "i'm bitter
Quote
Earlier this month on Atwater and Neal's recommendation, the Park Board voted to defer construction of the sea-lion exhibit for six months to monitor the economy. The project funding includes $3 million from Zoo Friends and $2 million from the city's third-penny sales tax program.
In the city's current economic condition, Atwater said she expressed concerns about where the city would find the $200,000 a year needed to operate the exhibit.
Taylor now wants the Park Board to reconsider its vote next month.
Neal said the mayor got more input from Zoo Friends showing the benefits of the low construction prices and that operational costs would not be needed for two years.
Keegan Young, Zoo Friends executive director, said the organization has a construction company ready to start the project. He also said Zoo Friends is committed to funding the operational costs that the city can't pay.
Translation: "When I decide something, it should stay 'decided'. There is no benefit in finding alternate solutions or colaborating"
Just a matter of time before all these quasi public deffered maintenance facilities bring our city down.....Tulsa was much better ficscally and artistically when the ballet, opera, symphony and philharmonic and two premium museums were our crown jewels. Tulsa, never a tourist town....never will be. A Chamber of Commerce led debacle.
What's going on in NYC will come to our town in 5 years. That's about how long our town is behind the curve...
Too few dollars chasing too many tax payer subsidized facilities....
As Arenas Sprout in New York Area, a Scramble to Fill Them - NYTimes.com.htm
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: June 28, 2009
In the inaugural season for the new ballparks for the New York Yankees and Mets, the teams have been embarrassed by television shots showing vast areas of premium seats going unsold.
Madison Square Garden
A rendering of a renovated Madison Square Garden, a project costing more than $500 million.
But those who study sporting facilities say empty seats may become even more commonplace here, as New York faces a glut of sports arenas.
Five major complexes — four existing and one planned — will soon be slugging it out within an area 30 miles wide.
At least two of the existing arenas already lose money, and experts say further casualties are almost guaranteed.
"Five arenas is not going to work," said Mark S. Rosentraub, a professor of sports management at the University of Michigan. "I don't think four works, even in a market as large as New York. There's competition in every direction and there aren't enough events."
In Brooklyn, the developer Bruce C. Ratner is racing to start construction of a $772 million arena for the Nets basketball team, even as Newark woos the Nets for its money-losing Prudential Center arena.
In New Jersey, the owner of the Devils hockey team, which abandoned the Izod Center in the Meadowlands to play at Prudential Center, wants Gov. Jon S. Corzine to tear down the Izod Center, in the hopes of eliminating a competing venue.
On Long Island, Charles Wang is pressuring local officials to approve his plans to rebuild the much-maligned Nassau Coliseum for his Islanders hockey team by hinting that the team might flee to Queens, or leave New York altogether.
Then there is Madison Square Garden, whose owners are starting a $500 million overhaul of the 41-year-old arena. The Garden's cachet helps draw performers, but the arena has another considerable advantage: three major professional sports teams play there, leaving the Garden with fewer dates to fill than the region's other arenas, which all play host to only one major sports team apiece.
By the time the arena in Brooklyn, which will be called Barclays Center, is built, there will be a total of nearly 100,000 seats to fill, 365 days a year.
"The market is saturated," said Professor Rosentraub. "In the long run, you've got serious challenges."
For most of the last 30 years, there were only three arenas in the New York area: the Garden, Nassau Coliseum and the Izod Center, which opened in 1981 as the Brendan Byrne Arena. Each facility, at one time or another, was home to at least two major sports franchises. But in New York, as in the rest of the country, teams have sought and obtained new buildings — a trend that has contributed to a glut of arenas.
And stadiums and other nontraditional sites have become new rivals. For example, KeySpan Park in Coney Island, which opened in 2001, also hosts musical acts.
Similar battles are already taking a toll in smaller markets than New York.
In Glendale, Ariz., the city-owned Jobing.com Arena — which is losing money and events to US Airways Center in nearby Phoenix and a third arena at Arizona State — may lose its National Hockey League franchise, the Phoenix Coyotes, which filed for bankruptcy last month.
In the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the Target Center, which is owned by the city of Minneapolis, vies with the publicly subsidized Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul. The Minnesota Timberwolves basketball team plays at the Target Center; the Minnesota Wild hockey team plays at Xcel Energy Center. Both sites are losing money, and they must also compete with the University of Minnesota, which has two arenas.
In Columbus, Ohio, the Blue Jackets hockey team recently opened negotiations to sell its money-losing Nationwide Arena to the county, but the recession has made the sale somewhat unlikely. Nationwide Arena competes for concerts and other nonsporting events with Ohio State University's Jerome Schottenstein Center, which barely breaks even, according to a report by The Columbus Dispatch.
All of this competition can eat deeply into revenues.
At Nationwide Arena, concert promoters have been known to use the competition as leverage to get a better deal. In some cases, according to Mike Priest, president of the Blue Jackets and JMAC, which manages the arena, promoters have forced the management to guarantee as much as $1.1 million for a major band, even though the same act commands $350,000 less in Indianapolis, which has one main arena.
The competition in the New York area is not just for fans and performers, but also for public subsidies, corporate sponsors and well-heeled tenants for luxury suites.
And within the overall competition, there are subsets of more intense rivalries. In New Jersey, the owner of the $375 million Prudential Center has taken aim at the state-owned Izod Center; in New York, the proposed Barclays Center in Brooklyn is positioned to be a rival of the Garden and the Nassau Coliseum.
No one questions the Garden's stature as the most venerable and busiest of arenas. It routinely books 275 hockey and basketball games (the Garden is home to the Rangers, Knicks and Liberty), circuses and concerts a year; most operators say arenas need to fill 200 dates to generate an operating surplus.
Still, the Garden's owners zealously guard their franchise. They successfully opposed the city's plan in 2005 to build a $2 billion football stadium nearby. The Garden is now embarking on a complete renovation of the arena at a cost of more than $500 million. The 89 existing luxury boxes at the top of the arena will be replaced by 97 plush suites much closer to the action.
The Garden, however, may be looking over its shoulder at Brooklyn, where Mr. Ratner has fought to build a new arena ever since he bought the Nets in 2003. His company has said it intends to host college basketball and boxing cards — both mainstays at the Garden.
Mr. Ratner must start construction by the end of the year in order to qualify for tax-exempt financing, but he faces a number of hurdles, including public approvals and a possible lawsuit.
If successful, Mr. Ratner's arena would be built next to a major transit hub that involves 10 subway lines and the Long Island Rail Road, providing access for those who might normally visit Nassau Coliseum, 16 miles to the east. Mr. Wang, whose Islanders hockey team plays there, has publicly bemoaned his inability to redevelop the arena, while he spends more than $20 million a year to keep the team alive.
Still, Mr. Ratner's arena would be the most expensive in the country, and his company has already sustained $111.9 million in pretax losses on the Nets. And critics contend that the tax revenues generated at Barclays Center will fall short of the $300 million in cash and tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks the state and the city have pledged to the arena and a related housing development.
In New Jersey, the owner of the Devils, Jeff Vanderbeek, and the City of Newark would rather have the Nets move from the Izod Center to the Prudential Center. The Devils played at Izod Center until the team's move to Newark in 2007.
The Nets have rebuffed the invitation. "It's flattering," said Brett Yormark, chief executive of Nets Sports and Entertainment. "But we're going to Brooklyn."
So far, Prudential Center has not been a success. The Devils invested $155 million in the arena, while Newark put up $220 million and spent another $85 million on related projects. The team is supposed to pay a minimum of $2 million a year in rent, far less than the city's $12.6 million annual debt service for the arena. But the Devils are disputing their rent bill and have yet to pay a dime.
Mr. Vanderbeek, who declined comment, touched off a political firestorm this month when he told The Record of Hackensack that the state needed to tear down the Izod Center. That, he told the paper's editorial board, would boost the bottom line of the Prudential Center and the Devils by at least $10 million annually.
His comments brought a quick rebuke from Governor Corzine and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which runs the Izod Center. Whether the Nets stay or go, the authority still needs to generate revenue to pay the bonds on the state-owned building.
Quote from: FOTD on June 29, 2009, 11:04:26 AM
Just a matter of time before all these quasi public deffered [sic] maintenance facilities bring our city down.....Tulsa was much better ficscally and artistically when the ballet, opera, symphony and philharmonic and two premium museums were our crown jewels. Tulsa, never a tourist town....never will be. A Chamber of Commerce led debacle.
Oklahoma City wasn't a tourist town. Now they have a conference every other weekend and are on ESPN once a month for something or other. Their minor attractions added up and they are doing just fine. Will people come to Tulsa from NYC for a vacation as Oklahomans might go to NYC? Probably not. But people from KC, Dallas, and the surrounding areas might come for a long weekend. Conferences might choose Tulsa for their events and people come for the events and bring their families to do and see what we have to offer. And on top of all that, who says residents of Tulsa can not enjoy what we have to offer?
Not to mention the Tulsa Zoo has been open since 1927, initiated by Tulsa Parks (not the Chamber). Philbrook opened in 1937. Tulsa Opera started in 1948, the same year as the Tulsa Philharmonic. Gilcrease was 1949. So I', not sure how the Zoo fits into your theory. Unless you are saying the premium museums and other crown jewels are bringing down the Zoo. Which I would disagree with.
And frankly, a city the size of Tulsa is expected to have certain things. It's considered part of the quality of life of an area. Tulsa offers many of the things you'd expect in a larger city. Some nicer, some needing work. I'm glad we continue to improve.
QuoteJust a matter of time before all these quasi public deffered maintenance facilities bring our city down.....Tulsa was much better ficscally and artistically when the ballet, opera, symphony and philharmonic and two premium museums were our crown jewels. Tulsa, never a tourist town....never will be. A Chamber of Commerce led debacle.
Well, that's just not true. I know lots of people from northwest Arkansas (and some from OKC too) who come to Tulsa to visit the zoo, the aquarium, TASM, Philbrook, BOk Center, etc. They come here to enjoy what Tulsa has to offer and most importantly they spend their money here, which means the burden of supporting these quality of life attractions is not foot by Tulsans alone. That's kind of the whole point.
Sporadic economics will not be enough.
Sparty, OKC has two major interstates...let's not get into how weak our "synergy development" around the BOK seems. Seems it has yet to take place. Will it happen? Will our disposable income be enough to enjoy and subsidize? Seems to me there's way too much going on to justify the expenses of up keep in the future. (heck, the polishing of the arena is gonna cost more than the line item first contemplated).
FOTD is sorry for helping divert this thread from its topic. Initially, the point was that our city government did little to help their future Sukcessors and administrators fix our long term liabilities. Underfunding in turn repels the talent needed to run various departments. Our parks being terrific assets exist out of a required necessity in developments around town. It's a shame previous mayors have laid no groundwork to insure that public safety and public education do not deteriorate at the expense of arenas and baseball parks and museums musems museums.
Well, what's the alternative? These regional attractions serve as a component of the basic economy for Tulsa, which means they bring in money from outside the region. Without them local money is just recirculated locally, which creates stagnation - no faster way to destroy an economy.
Tulsa's best bet for a sucessful and sustainable future is greater density. Not only would that better utilize already existing infrastructure, it would also make existing commercial development more viable. As it is now, any new commercial development simply detracts from already exisitng commercial development.
P.S. I'm sorry I am keeping this thread off topic. I'll shut up now.
Quote from: tshane250 on June 29, 2009, 04:16:43 PM
Well, what's the alternative? These regional attractions serve as a component of the basic economy for Tulsa, which means they bring in money from outside the region. Without them local money is just recirculated locally, which creates stagnation - no faster way to destroy an economy.
Tulsa's best bet for a sucessful and sustainable future is greater density. Not only would that better utilize already existing infrastructure, it would also make existing commercial development more viable. As it is now, any new commercial development simply detracts from already exisitng commercial development.
P.S. I'm sorry I am keeping this thread off topic. I'll shut up now.
Stagnation is not equal to low growth. This city flourished for years, slowly. The regional attractions bring in money from elsewhere but is the benefit greater than the liabilities they create?
Your other point is excellent. We should have walled the city off in 1965 and stopped the BA Expressway. FOTD just wishes we had the outstanding public school system that existed before white flight.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda.....why you won't hear much optimism coming from this Demon when it comes down to our town evolution....
QuoteStagnation is not equal to low growth. This city flourished for years, slowly. The regional attractions bring in money from elsewhere but is the benefit greater than the liabilities they create?
You know, I was just thinking. The current state of the city can be likened to the current national economic crisis. When the city went on an annexation binge in the past, it was sort like someone buying a house that they really couldn't afford. In the back of their mind they justify the purchase thinking they will get a raise every year and will be able to afford it at some point. Well, it turns out they couldn't afford it, but they get to keep it and everybody else gets to pay for it. Simply put, we're paying for the sins of the past.
I would counter that the city flourished quite rapidly. Tulsa saw significant population growth both pre and post WWII, sans aggressive annexation even. Everything sort of went to pot with the advent of the Interstate highway system and our love affair with the automobile (mixed liberally with cheap energy).
Quote from: ILUVTulsa on June 29, 2009, 05:03:35 PM
I'd want Adelson to hire her back. She seems like a crazy-maker, which is what EVERY city government NEEDS. If we had more crazy makers, no ballpark fiasco, NO GPA, NO River Tax.
Yes, Tulsa certainly will progress if we fill up our leadership positions with people that say "no" and say it loudly as if their opinion is the only thing that matters. It's de rigueur.
Peace makers that lobby for concensus, question and look for amenable solutions are so passe.
[edited to -db snark levels]
Carltonplace...what we need is someone thats not afraid to say "no," but also ask "why?" What we dont need are more sycophants that shake their heads any way the adminstration tells them to, despite the consequences.
Atwater didnt just say "no," she 'recommended' to wait 6 months to re-evaluate the economy and the impact of spending $2million on a sea lion exhibit out of an already diminished and strained budget.
Where is the harm in an appointed director questioning the need for expenses at financially weak times? I would call that fiscal responsibility and looking outside-the-box.
Let's not forget that Atwater, as well as Susan Neal (the Mayor's own Director of Community Development and
Education Initiatives) both recommended, and the Parks Board approved, the delay in this sea lion program.
This wasn't a decision pushed just by Atwater or adopted by just her. Obviously a majority of those on the Parks Board found reason to defer the sea lion exhibit for 6 months based on the recommendation made.
Now explain to me why Taylor wants so desperately to have that same Parks Board reconsider their already voted on position to delay?
To put it in persective...$2million from the Third Penny sales tax revenue could have been re-allocated or prioritized to the City's operating budget to cover any shortfall that we are now feeling the effects of.
According to reports in the Tulsa World, that $2million could cover a 2/3rds portion of the $2.9 million shortfall that could be realized on an anticipated loss of sales tax revenues. That $2.9million figure includes the loss of 18 city positions (most of which are filled), postponement/scrapping of the Police and Fire Academies, shuttering of expressway lighting, materials and supplies, training, utilities, software licensing, pagers and phones, journal subscriptions and membership fees (some of which Im sure can be done away with anyways). http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090612_11_A1_Elimin473151&archive=yes
The 4 additional furlough days for all city employees under the Mayor's current plan will save approximately $2.6million...so that $2million spent on a sea lion exhibit would right now provide 3 of those 8 days back to city employees, including public safety. Just imagine how many more days could be given back now that the Unions have renegotiated to cover those furlough days.
Another example of what could be done with the $2million...Police and Fire Acadamies as scheduled ($770,000) and school crossing guards ($525,000) would be covered...leaving $705,000 for other personnel and services if you wanted to ensure public safety.
If you want someone to blindly just spend, spend, spend then by all means...elect a similar leader that will demand nothing but blind obedience. If you want someone in any office that deals with your money and is willing to look out for the best interests of a City in need...well, sounds like we just lost one. Thanks Taylor.
Downtown Never...you are such a tool.
Surely you know what you have described above is not legal. The third penny funding is limited to capital items, not payroll.
Are you just ignorant of the law or do you assume we don't know it?
DT, it simply wasn't her call. The mayor is the chief executive. Atwater made her recommendation and the mayor overuled her and threw it back into consideration. End of story. Or at least it should have been. She overstepped her responsibility and any rationalizing that the money could have been spent in other areas simply was out of her boundaries. She may in fact be quite correct, but she is not the mayor and doesn't bear the responsibility of the decision.
The 3rd penney funds cannot be "re-allocated" they have to be used for the purpose approved by the voters on the ballot that was presented to us. They cannot be used as operating funds to replace a short fall in the first two pennies collected by the city.
I'm not saying that we need more sycophants, but we certainly don't need more obtuse individuals driving their own agendas either. I don't know Atwater and I don't know the situations that brought about her dismissal, so I probably shouldn't weigh in at all. I'm only basing my assertions on her actions since she was released.
Surely it wasn't all about the sea lion exhibit which has allocated tax funds, private donations and fund raising monies in place to move it forward.
And maybe I don't have any idea about this; and I certainly don't have a horse (or marine mammal) in the race so maybe I should step aside and let the more learned wise and knowledgable debate. Carry on.
Quote from: DowntownNow on June 29, 2009, 07:21:06 PM
To put it in persective...$2million from the Third Penny sales tax revenue could have been re-allocated or prioritized to the City's operating budget to cover any shortfall that we are now feeling the effects of.
WRONG!
As I've said before, third penny money voted on and approved by voters has to be spent on the items approved by the voters.
BUT, I will say this about all the extra tax requests submitted to voters. All of the extra tax requests submitted to voters goes to build glamorous buildings, such as the new arena, but never takes into account the added strain it puts on the 2-cent sales tax operating budget, such as the extra people needed to run/maintain/secure the new building. Do we not realize these extra capital items requires people to run them? When we put these items forward in a vote request, can we never make part of that request money for the extra people to operate that structure? Or is that too unpopular and would doom any vote?
I'll actually give Michael this one...he's right, and in my frustration over this issue I overlooked the inability to re-allocate funds from capital improvement to general operating funds, my mistake. But , I was simply putting numbers into some perspective. Had we been able to do that, great for Tulsa...but alas.
I wont take the time to address his use of 'tool'...why stoop to being just as small minded and childish when its clear he cant comprehend the basic argument being made and rebut convincingly anyway?
But the argument still carries weight...instead of utilizing funds for an unnecessary sea lion exhibit at this time, why not instead re-allocate those funds within the capital improvement project list for more necessary things like streets, widening, water and sewer upgrades, sidewalks, even projects that have been re-priortized or overlooked during the years, etc, especially when monies are tight like they are now and more critical needs are evident? This is done all the time people. There is still unfinished flood control improvements needed in the 28th & 137th area for example. Who wants to tell me that flood control to save lives and property is less urgent than a sea lion exhibit?
Someone just answer me why it is a foul to want to delay a project (for only 6 mos. mind you) in light of the state of the economy and the budget we are now forced to operate within? What is the point of creating a new exhibit if you're not sure funds will be available to continue its operation in the immediate future?
And let's not blow over the fact that there is a Parks Board for a reason. That Board, in its entirety and after hearing the exact same recommendation by both Atwater as Parks Director and Susan Neal as the Mayor's representative, decided to delay moving ahead on the project.
If the Mayor is going to refuse to heed the advice of the appointed Board, Trust and Authority members, why have such a system in place? Its not like Atwater (and Neal) held a gun to the heads of the rest of the Board and told them to vote one way just to tick the Mayor off. I would think those that are appointed are done so with the expectation that they are individuals with intelligence and an ability to judge an issue, and the facts surrounding it, and decide from there and do so in the best interest of the organization and City they represent. Could be I'm the one expecting too much here.
But that seems to be what was done here, by a number of park board members, not just Atwater. Surely they cant be simple minded, appointed minions that do as they are told...where is the citizen protection of fiscal policy in that? Oh wait...Michael, perhaps you want to answer that one?
Oh heck, I can't help myself. It would be like having...lets say, the head of some, oh...environmental trust for example...using the budgeted funds available to go buy all new trucks right now, despite not needing even one of them and just because the Mayor said to do it, but the economy is shaky, revenues are down and the Trust's budget has shrunk from the previous year. Forget those same trucks could be put to better use by a street crew, police or fire. Forget strengthening your organization's fiscal position to ensure you can still operate at the capacity you have been, that you can continue to maintain the level of service you have been providing, that you can afford to pay all those employed under you, or that you really need to open another location and equip it to keep up with increasing demand...but you sure have shiny new trucks to collect that recyclable refuse in, boy howdy. I suppose that would be alright to do and just sit back and wait for failure if the economy should falter further eh?
Simple fact of the matter is this...just cause we have funds doesnt mean we have to spend them 'then and there'. More weight has to be given to more critical needs that could be advanced by those same funds, not to mention the ability to fund, operate and maintain such a project once construction is finished. Isnt this what ultimately happened to old City Hall? Funds were not made available through the budget due to restrictive revenues based on sales tax income and maintenance was forever deferred until it was declared we just need a new one?
Atwater's questioning does nothing more than attempt to cushion against what the Mayor and her staff has even said could be a much deeper and much more harmful cut to an already risky budget is sales tax revenues continue to fall. Just some recent comments from the adminstration concerning the state of the economy and the unforeseen effects it can have on the City budget (which can and will effect the Zoo budget):
"It all depends on whether Tulsa's economy turns around sooner rather than later," she (Amy Polanchek) said after a briefing with councilors. "We are in a very critical period right now."
Councilor Bill Martinson asked city finance officials what will be done if more than $10.5 million in cuts are required. Finance Director Mike Kier said there is no plan in place for that scenario. "If it goes beyond that, it would be more difficult than anything we've done up to this point," he said.
An administrative handout to the councilors states: "While the reductions might be able to be managed for a year, inventories are not large enough to go beyond that before impacting services." (operating and maintaining the zoo is a service)
If sales tax revenues continue to decline, you could see a sharp decrease in available funding for zoo operations that would, in fact, impact the ability to continue and maintain such a habitat that was being questioned here. I would think the critical needs of the citizens would and should outweigh the needs of the zoo if things became that dire which I hope they dont.
And Carltonplace...thank you for pointing out my mistake in saying monies can be re-allocated. I stand corrected. But, I would ask you to point out what personal agenda Atwater was trying to push in recommending a 6 month delay? Also...in recommending that same delay, was Susan Neal also pushing a personal agenda and being just as obtuse? I'd find it difficult to believe one was and can be while the other is not...and one works for the Mayor thats throwing the hissy fit now. Do you think Taylor would have appointed someone that had their own personal agenda in mind?
Perhaps the question needs to be asked that in light of the strangled economy and impact on the City budget, why is it so important for Mayor Taylor to push this project to get started now and not do the prudent thing and fiscally responsible thing in waiting the Park Board's recommended 6 months? Will Zoo Friends pull their $3million construction and operating contribution if they wait? The public relations nightmare that would created makes it unlikely.
On another note. I find it troubling that bid and selection of the contractor was handled by Zoo Friends and not the Zoo itself. As a municipal agency, the Zoo/City would likely have had to place the project for bid and accept the lowest competitive bid. But not Zoo Friends, they dont have to. Is there a connection? I dont know...just throwing it out there for comment.
I apologize for the tool comment...
I don't disagree that there are things we want to do and things we need to do and no way to afford both. But I also believe that if you always put public safety up against everything else and proclaim it as essential, a community will be safe and empty. People want some niceties, they want parks and trails and new exhibits at the zoo every once in a while.
I don't disagree that this might not be the ideal time to build a new exhibit, but you keep acting as if Zoo friends won't follow prudent measures in selecting contractors to build such an exhibit. Your comments act as if the city bidding process is the most efficient way to build anything. I assure you, it ain't. I suspect the Zoo Friends will negotiate good contracts and will have the flexibility to probably get better prices because they can also offer some recognition as well as payment for services. Face it, no contractor ever does anything cheaper for government.
I wish I could get a shiny new truck. I have had money budgeted for two years in a row to buy another truck and keep having other emergencies pop up. We have five trucks in the fleet and all have 125,000 miles or more on them.
I think the truth was in the original story.
"I'm much better in the private sector than the public; it's more honest, more flexible. The private world is not ethically repugnant," she said.
Quote from: TeeDub on July 01, 2009, 08:44:33 AM
The private world is not ethically repugnant," she said.
She obviously hasn't worked in private industry either. I've seen ethical and questionable behavior in every place I've worked, regardless of whether is was public or private sector.
It wasn't about any ethical instance, just as it wasn't about a sea lion exhibit. The story was about an employee who got fired trying to take parting shots at her ex-boss.
Well Michael, I appreciate your apology. And I also commend you for taking the higher road when it comes to fiscal responsibility for your Trust. That is a shining example of what Im talking about...making a sacrifice of luxury when other more important needs are knocking at the door.