news-record.com

BLOGS

Thinking Out Loud

Another bond package? Really? Now?

I'm not sure where Zack Matheny's thinking is here.

But from a PR standpoint, economic development bonds for (downtown) (Zack just called; he says the bonds are not for downtown; they're for the whole city; I misread the story) Greensboro on top of possible bonds for a performing arts center will almost certainly turn off skeptical voters.

Both could fail. Big time. The arts center faces a tough battle to begin with but $20 million more in bonds could seal the deal.

This City Council already is earning a reputation, accurate or not, for being a group of eager spenders.

I'm not sure where Zack is coming from on this one. This is a real puzzler.

A possible no-win scenario all around.

Update: Zack disagrees; he thinks hs proposed bonds will help the arts center bonds. He say he's "indifferent' about the arts center but believes the economic development bonds would directly address local unemployment. He says the performing arts center is "a tough sell."

Matheny insists he's not trying to put the kibosh on the arts center; if he wanted to do that, he said, "I'd have waited until June."

He also said he felt compelled to place the idea of job creation front and center on the council's agenda.

But the timing is awkward, coming as it does on the heels of the arts center task force launch. Some people feel ambushed. His idea may be a good one but he's already hurt his chances of selling it. A good idea without support is just that: a good idea and nothing more.

Permalink

Posted by Allen Johnson on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 9:16 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

rooster8786

February 21, 2012 - 9:38 am EST

Matheny must subscribe to the Hollywood PR fallacy of "ANY PR is good PR". Whereas most people believe if you don't have anything to add to the discussion, keep your mouth closed. Grandma always said better to be quiet and thought an idiot, than open your mouth and remove all doubt. I think I now know why...

oh good grief

February 21, 2012 - 10:09 am EST

Mr. Johnson, have you considered that all this bond(s) "talk" may be just that -- talk? Perhaps adding another bond to the mix is meant to be the death knell.

The majority of this City Council is paying "lip service" to the people who "encouraged" them to run and who have had the respective "ears" of some of the present council members for a long time, because the majority of council members know it will probably not get past a bond referendum. Even if they enlist the "vote yes to a bond/any bond" group of people who are regularly in downtown to drink, "par-tee," show off their fighting sides, vomit on the street/sidewalk, or urinate in parking decks it (hopefully) won't be enough to pass the bond(s).

The present City Council can't lose their seats over this one because all they will have to say is "We tried, "friend," but those rascally voters . . ." or in a year or so from now will be chanting to those same "special interest" voters that the Council members should be re-elected to keep "money flowing" (but into whose pockets?) for two more years.

And if anyone wants to call me a "cynic" so be it. Hello Greensboro Coliseum Complex. Thankfully, given the history of the "playas" on the present City Council, I have yet to be fooled by them. I don't even have to repeat the old adage "Fool me, once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Allen Johnson

February 21, 2012 - 12:19 pm EST

I don't this is a built-to-fail ploy. My impression is that the arts center boosters, on the council and elsewhere, genuinely want an arts center.

newtogso

February 21, 2012 - 11:30 am EST

This is indicative of Matheny's naive "go solo" approach to politicking. The reason this should not be brought forth is there is little evidence that he has bothered to discuss this with his fellow council members prior to launching a press release. He did this with the curfew and the noise ordinance as well. Good politics is not about it being "your" idea, Zack. Please learn this....quickly.

citywatcher

February 21, 2012 - 12:02 pm EST

Zack is in a sticky situation. Downtown is in his district but at the same time he is really close to the War Memorial Auditorium Commission. This means he is in cahoots with Matt Brown, who btw wants a new PAC built at the coliseum. Maybe Zack's interest is to build the performing arts center at the coliseum and by adding another bond, its a sure way to help kill any hopes of a downtown PAC. After taxpayers see how many millions in bonds are on the ballot for downtown, they probably won't support either of the bonds. This is what doesn't make sense. On one hand Zack says he doesn't think this is the right time for a bond on a downtown PAC because of the economy but on the other hand he supports an additional multi million dollar bond for other downtown projects. Zack says we need to do something about War Mermorial Auditorium but then he doesn't seem to support a bond for a downtown PAC which would be in his district. Something fishy is going on here. Is he trying to do a favor for Matt Brown?

Allen Johnson

February 21, 2012 - 12:16 pm EST

Would Zack be that Machiavellian? I dunno.

citywatcher

February 21, 2012 - 12:29 pm EST

One thing is for sure, he is a politician and a slick one at that. I do know that Zack has been a coliseum booster for a long time and if he prefers the PAC being at the coliseum, his proposal could very well be a way to derail a downtown PAC. Zack does have close ties with the War Memorial commission.

thirstytarheel

February 21, 2012 - 11:57 am EST

If they get the bond on the November 2012 ballot, I think it has a good chance of passing. Given the liberal leanings of a lot of my fellow Greensburgers and with Obama also on the ballot, folks who don't pay taxes will go to the polls and give the President a majority of votes and be very likely to also vote for these bonds. That will teach all these fat cat property owners about "fairness". And considering the history of the editors at the N & R, our local daily newspaper will endorse this bond issue.

Allen Johnson

February 21, 2012 - 12:16 pm EST

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends.
We evaluate all bonds on a case-by-case basis, considering the potential payoff of the investment versus the cost.

rooster8786

February 21, 2012 - 12:34 pm EST

Allen, Thanks for the chuckle...

brian444

February 21, 2012 - 1:13 pm EST

I think this a Machiavellian ploy of a different order. Having one dead-in-the-water bond alongside a viable one increases, not decreases, the passage of the latter, no? Look at Gboro's voting history on bonds: there are always some that pass and some that fail.

It's along the lines of the spending patterns of my liberal wife, who will come home with a new pair of shoes, but actually having _saved_ money because she didn't buy the other pair of shoes that she wanted, too. With two bonds, we can _save_ money by only voting for one!

Allen Johnson

February 21, 2012 - 1:35 pm EST

And which one survives?

brian444

February 21, 2012 - 1:49 pm EST

The PAC. This one is obviously going nowhere.

tom phillips

February 21, 2012 - 3:09 pm EST

Allen, I don't believe Zack's proposal is just for downtown economic development. During the last campaign there was no discussion of a downtown PAC (at least publicly) but there was a lot about creating jobs. If we're going to propose bonds at all, economic development makes more sense than a PAC bond.

Allen Johnson

February 21, 2012 - 3:30 pm EST

You're right, Tom. They would be for the whole city. After speaking with Zack this afternoon, I see his point. His timing, however, is awkward, to say the least. Some will question his motives, since he is not a big fan of the performing arts center to begin with.
That aside, he has raised a valid question. It's worth debating.
This could come down to a choice. I don't see bonds for both passing.

Dogwood

February 21, 2012 - 3:47 pm EST

There is a lot of talk about expanding water and sewer eastward to enhance economic development. Some people own huge tracts of land that have convenient road frontage that will make a killing if the city sells bonds for sewer and water projects. What does Mathey want to economically develop with this $20 million bond?

retiree

February 21, 2012 - 6:38 pm EST

The PAC is a pipe dream for the wine and cheese crowd on the Council, the school system, Commissioners, and all of the area college crowd too. What the Council needs to do is focus on jobs, jobs, jobs (like Obama says he does every waking minute . . . unless it's on the golf course), but the liberal folks (and minority community) who voted in the current Council want something (paid for by all taxpayers) for their vote.

Allen Johnson

February 21, 2012 - 6:43 pm EST

The task force includes more than wine sippers. And if you'll do some checking, you'll find out that War Memorial Auditorium has reached a very broad constituency.

zeketreese

February 21, 2012 - 7:26 pm EST

The PAC is a JOBS bond. People keep saying we should "focus on jobs" but fail to make the connection that a PAC=jobs. People who build it, people who work there, people who perform there, people who start new businesses around a PAC, local business that expand because of increased traffic, etc. I work at a downtown establishment and I guarantee that when the new PAC opens, we will need to hire more people. That is called job creation.

BillWright

February 22, 2012 - 1:36 am EST

800 pound gorilla- as gas prices head upward toward $5.00 (as Obama stated he wants to force a green economy), those of us who foot the bills for this county will contract our traveling and other discretionary dollars, travel to this area will shrivel, and hopefully, voters who are spending more of their money just to survive will deal yet another slap to the face of the spend now- pay later gang.