Compromise is better than stubbornness

GREGORY BRUNO / News Virginian
Published: May 26, 2007

I've witnessed the deep divide in the community, resulting from the proposed donation by the city to the Wayne Theatre renovation, as described in Alicia Petska's recent articles in The News Virginian. I know and respect several people on each side of the issue. The controversy is damaging friendships and alienating neighbors. Some people are entrenched and very emotional about their positions.

Mayor Reynolds' decision to stifle public input at the recent City Council meeting, prior to the non-binding vote on the matter, most certainly inflamed the issue. In the years that I've been attending council meetings, I haven't heard such loud booing from so many citizens, and I really can't blame them for doing it. In the past, Mayor Reynolds has been the "voice of reason" when other councilmembers were misbehaving. Something is wrong when he is making decisions that show contempt for the public. There is an air of stubborn resistance to compromise about the Wayne Theatre project.

During the 2006 City Council election, we witnessed the now-broken campaign promises that said the donation to the Wayne Theatre renovation was a dead issue. Lorie Smith responded to my direct inquiry about that question via e-mail (which I still have), clearly stating that it was a dead issue. When I recently discussed this contradiction with Lorie, she was offended. There really isn't any way to discuss a broken campaign promise without offending the person who is breaking the promise. I supported Lorie in the last election and still think she was the best choice, but I expect integrity from those who get my vote.

Integrity demands that Lorie Smith should keep her campaign promise or recuse herself from voting on the Wayne Theatre question. A tie vote by the City Council would mean negotiation between the two sides, hopefully resulting in a much smaller donation and an end to this conflict.

Only two sides are being argued on this multifaceted question. One side says, "Don't spend a penny on the theater," while the other wants to tie the city to an undefined amount of future liability (blank check). From what the mayor stated at that meeting, the initial $300,000 and the hoped-for $700,000 are not the proposed end of the city's contributions. Cost overruns are common on such projects. How much more will be demanded- The Wayne Theatre building is in true "money pit" condition. I am concerned that there will be unexpected and costly surprises.

I oppose the excessive amount of money that is being considered. Our city is now going deeply into debt, while attempting to repair infrastructure that has been neglected for decades. Taxes are rising and citizens are demanding better money management. Vital city needs are being ignored in order to allow for this controversial expenditure. This matter may be determining the outcome of the 2008 City Council elections. Some serious knuckleheads may get elected to the council in reaction to this issue.

The city of Waynesboro should invest something in the Wayne Theatre. I think that the theater could potentially benefit the city, if the renovation is done well. I don't believe that the ticket sales will meet the WTA's estimates on an ongoing basis. WTA members have repeatedly made invalid comparisons between the Wayne Theatre and successful arts projects in cities of much larger population, and involving buildings with much better architecture and physical condition. Every positive future development in the downtown area is likely to be attributed to the renovated Wayne Theatre, whether it is involved or not. However, I think it is hard to shower millions of dollars on a project without some positive effect resulting. For instance, I expect to be one of the theater's best customers. As a lifelong patron of the arts, I already attend local concerts and plays.

I suggest that the amount of the donation be capped at $200,000. The smaller donation is a reasonable compromise that will require the WTA to more seriously campaign for private donations. I feel that their prior dependence upon taxpayer funds has prevented them from vigorous fundraising. Raising money is hard work, and I don't envy them. Wealthy citizens do exist in Waynesboro, but only a fraction of them have made substantial donations to the WTA. That leaves a lot of potential on the table. Taking so much money from unwilling taxpayers is not a viable alternative.

Gregory Bruno is the vice chair of the Waynesboro Planning Commission.