Another piece on the demolition of the old movie theaters, which are directly across the street from our office (not known as "Herald Tower," but maybe someday).
“Show me the money.”
It’s fitting I start this rant about the old downtown movie theaters with that movie quote.
You don’t have to show me the $2 million it cost to build the Clinton 8. You don’t even have to show me the $99,500 asking price for the Capri III/Cinema I we reported last April.
What I’m talking about is $10,000 — the amount of money spent to acquire the old downtown four-screen complex, which is now owned by local businessman Tim Clark, so that it can be turned into parking.
Here is my point: There has been no shortage of people, many former Clinton residents, complaining the city didn’t do anything to preserve the old buildings that will end up as parking lots by the end of the summer.
It doesn’t take much for a California or Colorado resident to suggest the city spend $10,000 of its money — of my money. Move back, vote, pay some property taxes — then tell the city how to spend its money.
To be sure, there are people still living here who are sad to see the old buildings go. Most of the yearning is based on a long individual history a person had with the theater, as they would with a school or church. Many people refer to the May 15, 1940, world premiere of the Lillian Russell film — held when the theaters were called the Capitol and Rialto — as the reason for preservation.
Yet for all of this desire to keep the old buildings up, no one came forth with $10,000 in the six months the buildings were for sale. Many people sent message to the Clinton Herald Web site, suggesting the building be used to show art house movies or re-converted into a spot for stage plays.
Two problems.
First, the owner wouldn’t sell unless the buyer agreed to a 20-year no-compete clause. Competition is not desirable against a $2 million investment. Furthermore, if the theaters could have been profitable showing movies, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the cinema company would have retained its ownership of the downtown theaters and kept showing movies?
Second, while stage plays would be OK under the no-compete contract, we already have a stage in town. It’s called the Clinton Area Showboat Theatre. No, it’s not a year-round theater company. No, it probably doesn’t have enough seats or the most modern accommodations. But the city is, through the Vision Iowa program, working at making improvements to the boat. Why should the city spend money to build up what would likely be a competitor?
The root of the argument is economic viability. If Cinema Entertainment Corp. could have make money showing second-run movies downtown, you’d better believe it would have tried. If a theater company thought it could make money running shows September through May in a downtown stage setting, wouldn’t such a company have come along — especially since the building cost just $10,000?
The problem, of course, is that the cost is far more than $10,000. Asbestos removal is expensive and dangerous, not to mention the rehabilitation costs. It’s safe to say there is no theater company with its eye on Clinton waiting for the perfect opportunity to serve an untapped customer base, much the way Home Depot is preparing to move in because estimates show it can clear between $20 million and $26 million in annual sales.
Look, I love old buildings. In my hometown is an old high school building I went to freshman year. It was built during World War I. The classrooms have hardwood floors, the gym looks like it was used as a backdrop for “Hoosiers” and Marlon Brando allegedly rode his motorcycle through the halls to cheese off the principal (whose son lives across the street and taught world history when I attended).
It’s going to cost someone at least $8.5 million to even think about saving that structure, which is far more important to the look of the town than these theaters are to Clinton. But I’d be a hypocrite and a fool if I begged the leaders of my old town to spend my parents’ taxes on saving a structure. I’m happy to read that architects and developers in the community are working to save the building but skeptical of their options.
I know of no such efforts in Clinton. All we have here are people criticizing a downtown businessman for doing what he thinks is necessary to keep his business viable in the downtown area. Just like Clinton’s old theaters, I’d rather have that old school come down in my hometown than see it in various stages of disrepair every time I visit home.
Money makes the world go ‘round, and the same is true in Clinton. That’s why there will be a new Maid-Rite near the Clinton 8 while there were no restaurants feeding off the Capri III/Cinema I. That’s why Home Depot won’t have problems selling off its outlots. That’s why the Howes and Van Allen buildings can be redeveloped into apartments while old churches, schools, post offices and movie theaters sit around like the mean, ugly, not-quite housebroken puppy at an animal shelter.
Love often saves those puppies. And it would take a similar love, or at least a dedicated business mind, to save the theaters and other such buildings. But it also will take money. And unless some white knight is planning to ride into Clinton with bags and bags of cash, we’re going to have this discussion again and again.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Money makes the world go 'round
One of the true joys (note: sarcasm) of covering city hall is the annual budget process. No matter how many times you explain it to the 'outsiders,' there are just some rules that don't make sense. Here's one reporter's feeble attempt.
The upcoming budget approval cycle in Iowa won’t be pretty.
Not for schools, not for cities, not for counties.
Some jobs already have been lost. Many more are likely to go, either through layoffs or attrition. Capital improvement projects will remain on the drawing board, tax rates will increase and nobody is going to come out unscathed.
Except maybe the state legislators who hold down income and sales tax increases and rail against cities, counties and schools for raising property taxes. Meanwhile, those same state legislators tell local bodies what they can do with their money, what they have to pay for and sometimes decide not to cover their planned budget contributions.
I’m not trying to single out any one lawmaker. When the 90 Clinton County folks planning to be in Des Moines Thursday meet with those legislators, there will be handshakes and smiles and an element of honest goodwill. I, however, will be holding my breath and wondering how soon I’ll have to write another story about depleted budgets and the hard decisions that come about during fiscal crisis.
As I write this column Tuesday morning, I have yet to hear Clinton City Council members and city officials discuss their reactions to a proposed budget down in expenditures $623,173 from two fiscal years ago. Over the same period, reserve balances have declined $459,738.
But numbers don’t mean as much as words in this case: Three police and three fire positions are on the chopping block, as is one recreation position and some part-time jobs. And depending on who accepts early retirement incentives, more jobs probably will go unfilled.
Already the complaints have come in, suggesting the city do away with “things that are useless and wasteful,” as one reader posted on our Internet site. Another delivered backhanded compliments about downtown streetscape improvements, blaming City Administrator Jeff Kooistra for wanting to cut public safety budgets.
There are three things people need to understand about municipal finance:
1. Public safety accounts for 70 percent of the city’s budget. It’s not like the police and fire departments have extra money, but they do have a bigger pot to work with.
2. After all the city has cut over the past three years, what is left but the bare minimum?
3. You can’t spend road money on general fund departments — in the same way that school districts cannot spend building money on textbooks or salaries. Road money is generated through the road use tax formula. If the city doesn’t spend it on roads, it has to give it back to the state. And we all know there are plenty of roads in Clinton that could use some attention.
As Kooistra puts it: “We’re dealing with what the state hands us. We don't have any authority to change some of those things. You can’t spend street money on firefighters. The law won’t let you do that.”
And let’s not forget who should be getting the blame for the current financial situation. It isn’t the city administration or council members. It isn’t the individual departments. City employees have worked very hard just to keep the status quo, putting off capital improvements or hiring new people, scrimping and saving to keep serving the public.
No, the fault here lies with the state of Iowa and its Reinvent Iowa legislation. If you want more police and fire protection, call Des Moines, not City Hall. And yes, that may mean things like income or sales tax on certain things will have to go up, even in an election year. But the city does not deserve to keep taking the fall for the state’s decisions.
Kooistra said he and City Clerk/Finance Director Deb Neels ran several numbers and determined Clinton might have been OK if the state hadn’t cut about $550,000 in state shared revenues and bank franchise fees. While all the talk last year was about the earlier-than-anticipated loss of machinery and equipment tax replacement, Kooistra said the city’s plan to deal with that loss, formulated before he arrived, was good enough to carry it through some rough spells. But that extra half million dollars is crippling.
Maybe some people will take early retirement. Maybe someday the lost state allocations will be restored. In the meantime, costs are rising all over — state-run retirement funds with required contributions, employee health care and the general cost of doing business. Simple things like running a thermostat at City Hall or putting gas in a Parks Department lawn mower cannot be ignored.
I’m not saying we should support laying off firefighters and police officers. It’s just sad to think we have no other choice. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be angry — we should be outraged. But when that anger is misplaced, nothing positive will happen.
The upcoming budget approval cycle in Iowa won’t be pretty.
Not for schools, not for cities, not for counties.
Some jobs already have been lost. Many more are likely to go, either through layoffs or attrition. Capital improvement projects will remain on the drawing board, tax rates will increase and nobody is going to come out unscathed.
Except maybe the state legislators who hold down income and sales tax increases and rail against cities, counties and schools for raising property taxes. Meanwhile, those same state legislators tell local bodies what they can do with their money, what they have to pay for and sometimes decide not to cover their planned budget contributions.
I’m not trying to single out any one lawmaker. When the 90 Clinton County folks planning to be in Des Moines Thursday meet with those legislators, there will be handshakes and smiles and an element of honest goodwill. I, however, will be holding my breath and wondering how soon I’ll have to write another story about depleted budgets and the hard decisions that come about during fiscal crisis.
As I write this column Tuesday morning, I have yet to hear Clinton City Council members and city officials discuss their reactions to a proposed budget down in expenditures $623,173 from two fiscal years ago. Over the same period, reserve balances have declined $459,738.
But numbers don’t mean as much as words in this case: Three police and three fire positions are on the chopping block, as is one recreation position and some part-time jobs. And depending on who accepts early retirement incentives, more jobs probably will go unfilled.
Already the complaints have come in, suggesting the city do away with “things that are useless and wasteful,” as one reader posted on our Internet site. Another delivered backhanded compliments about downtown streetscape improvements, blaming City Administrator Jeff Kooistra for wanting to cut public safety budgets.
There are three things people need to understand about municipal finance:
1. Public safety accounts for 70 percent of the city’s budget. It’s not like the police and fire departments have extra money, but they do have a bigger pot to work with.
2. After all the city has cut over the past three years, what is left but the bare minimum?
3. You can’t spend road money on general fund departments — in the same way that school districts cannot spend building money on textbooks or salaries. Road money is generated through the road use tax formula. If the city doesn’t spend it on roads, it has to give it back to the state. And we all know there are plenty of roads in Clinton that could use some attention.
As Kooistra puts it: “We’re dealing with what the state hands us. We don't have any authority to change some of those things. You can’t spend street money on firefighters. The law won’t let you do that.”
And let’s not forget who should be getting the blame for the current financial situation. It isn’t the city administration or council members. It isn’t the individual departments. City employees have worked very hard just to keep the status quo, putting off capital improvements or hiring new people, scrimping and saving to keep serving the public.
No, the fault here lies with the state of Iowa and its Reinvent Iowa legislation. If you want more police and fire protection, call Des Moines, not City Hall. And yes, that may mean things like income or sales tax on certain things will have to go up, even in an election year. But the city does not deserve to keep taking the fall for the state’s decisions.
Kooistra said he and City Clerk/Finance Director Deb Neels ran several numbers and determined Clinton might have been OK if the state hadn’t cut about $550,000 in state shared revenues and bank franchise fees. While all the talk last year was about the earlier-than-anticipated loss of machinery and equipment tax replacement, Kooistra said the city’s plan to deal with that loss, formulated before he arrived, was good enough to carry it through some rough spells. But that extra half million dollars is crippling.
Maybe some people will take early retirement. Maybe someday the lost state allocations will be restored. In the meantime, costs are rising all over — state-run retirement funds with required contributions, employee health care and the general cost of doing business. Simple things like running a thermostat at City Hall or putting gas in a Parks Department lawn mower cannot be ignored.
I’m not saying we should support laying off firefighters and police officers. It’s just sad to think we have no other choice. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be angry — we should be outraged. But when that anger is misplaced, nothing positive will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
