7 more posts...then silence
Here is the last of the Dahl comments to date.
I put the last one on at 8:00 this morning
and haven't heard a peep all day...
The Humpty Dumpty part must have spooked 'em.
I put the last one on at 8:00 this morning
and haven't heard a peep all day...
The Humpty Dumpty part must have spooked 'em.
posted by Bill Fleming at 6:12 PM
2 Comments:
23.
I agree with hanging together when it comes to sharing resources and staying on track with a consistent vision. RCAC has never wavered from the task that was assigned or the from achieving the vision of creating a successful comprehensive community arts center. The last two years of planning and community input associated with this project have so strongly identified needs, but also identified methods to make the higher vision possible. It is exactly the strength of the small and large arts groups, artists, community groups, business sponsors, foundation, grant sources, local-state and national funding sources unified behind the vision that have brought it this far.
Comment by Linda Anderson — 4/13/2005 @ 1:29 am
24.
Hey Don F.
…”high-toned artsy fartsy folks”?
Such a way to address these classy people
on the blog.
All I can say is “I resemble that remark!”
Good post though, Don…
(you low-toned, silver-tongued devil).
Comment by 25 Cent — 4/13/2005 @ 7:19 am
25.
How much time do the two groups have before they
take their proposals to the City Council for a final decision?
Is there any way the Dahl execs and BHCT can get together
and take a single, workable plan to city hall (as per Don F’s hope)?
As I understand it, the whole community belongs to, and is welcome
to participate in the Rapid City Arts Council, just as they are welcome
to show up and participate in City Council meetings.
In other words, everyone in Rapid City has ownership in the Dahl,
not just the “artsy fartsies” (as Don puts it).
It’s a decision we all need to make together, as a community of artists,
art appreciators, non-artists, and art scoffers alike.
It’s the way we define our local culture.
We need to learn what it means to think and behave creativily
every bit as much as we need to learn to swim,
play ice hockey, and build better roads through town.
In fact, good creative problem solving is the key to learning
how we can do everything we do – better.
I hope a lot of people show up and send a clear signal to the arts groups
and the city council as to their wishes on this issue.
They appear to need guidance – most of all from the people
they intend to serve – you!
Comment by Bill Fleming — 4/13/2005 @ 8:27 am
26.
Hmmmmm. haven’t heard much from Mike Gould lately. His suggestion that we look at http://www.RCPerformingArtsCenter.com didn’t really yield much in the way of useful info.
How much in private funding has BHCT raised? It has had, after all, several years to raise money, during which the RC Arts Council raised $2.5 million.
Comment by Bob Newland — 4/13/2005 @ 12:42 pm
27.
Yeah, Bob, the first round of info came in pretty quickly,
but now it’s time to do some head scratchin’, huh?
I suppose round 2 will take a while. It’s the unrehearsed part.
Improv is tough. Time to get creative.
Comment by 25 Cent — 4/13/2005 @ 3:56 pm
28.
I’m not a real “artsy” type guy. I prefer hiking in the hills, or being active at the park to watching someone else play a part or do a reading, but thats my personal interest; there are a lot of folks that DO like live entertainment, and I respect their right to enjoy those.
However, at what point do you add more “stuff” to your house??
In our household, we have a set amount of money to spend and if we get more “stuff” to maintain, we have to figure out a way to maintain it. Before I’d go out and get a newer shinier vehicle, or another Cell phone for the family, I better make sure my power, utilities and home payments are all up to date, there’s a bit in savings and that everythings all maintained the way it should be…
That said… how about we look at where else that money could go. I am aware of how the 2012 money is designated for improvements in the quality of living, not city maintenence issues. I’m totally in agreement with that AS LONG AS we’re maintaining what we have already to the standards it should be.
Are our teachers and city workers being paid as they should? (Last I knew, South Dakota teachers were way at the bottom of the national average.) It’s not a good sign if we have police and/or fire officals that have to have a second job to make sure they can afford a decent standard of living (and yes, that is happening in rapid city, for some of our city workers). WHy do we need a pipe organ (love the music but I’m not sure how feasible it is) or a curling rink (we have two ice rinks in Pennington county… can they Timeshare??)?
We have a civic center with a theater in it already.. why can’t that be used instead of building a new one?? Helps the civic center make ends meet, helps the Arts Council folks not have to deal with their own building (unless they REALLY want one for some reason) and frees up some city money for other purposes.
I’m not blind to the fact that cities don’t run the same way households do. Maybe they should.
Wc
Comment by webcleric — 4/13/2005 @ 8:59 pm
29.
There is probably enough information contained in this exchange on Mt. Blogmore to do an Pro/Con analysis of the two projects and make a rational decision as to how best to present a joint proposal to city council as to how best to use 2012 funds to support the arts. But notice I said “rational.”
Unfortunately, as Bill Harlan points out in his post, there are people who have become “very, very angry” over this issue. That anger, and the reasons for it, has not really surfaced in this discussion as yet. So those of us on the sidelines have to try to read between the lines to figure out why the Arts community has become emotionally divided over this issue.
To get that conversation started, I’d like to ask some questions that perhaps oversimplify things,
but may lead to a broader and deeper discussion. Here are the questions:
When the Dahl expansion project first started, the Dakota Artists Guild, BHCT and the Dahl all occupied the same building and were obviously running out of room. The Dahl expansion seemed like a good idea because it would allow all those entities to stay under one roof, share administrative expenses,
and generate a cross-discipline, creative synergy for each of the entities as well as for the community.
What happened that even as the planning and fundraising was taking place to expand the facility to accomodate everyones needs, one by one, the relationship among the parties broke down?
(i.e. First the Dakota Artist Guild left, and now BHCT is looking for a different place, in effect
proposing to realign itself with DAG while walking away from the Dahl and RCAC.)
Those are the fences that appear to need mending.
Can the Rapid City Arts Council put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
Can all the Kings horses and all the Kings men?
Is there a King?
Comment by Bill Fleming — 4/14/2005 @ 8:06 am
Ok, there has been some more activity on the
RCJ Dahl topic. See below.
30.
Hey, it’s been 25 hours since the last post on this thread.
Has the creative well dried up?
Or is that deafening silence just the sound of wheels turning in brilliant minds?
Comment by 25 Cent — 4/15/2005 @ 7:59 am
31.
Some troubling questions that I hope someone can answer:
1. Is it true that the Arts Council has raised $2.1 million and Community Theatre has raised less than $100,000 for the Dahl Expansion in the past two years?
2. Is it true that the Arts Council is on track to get $1.1 million in national foundation grants (money from outside the BH and local donors) that will be lost if the Dahl Expansion plan doesn’t go through?
3. Is it true that the Federal government has given $250,000 to the Dahl project for ADA upgrades?
4. Is it true that Community Theatre has virtual no non-2012 funding for their proposal? In other words, the taxpayers of Rapid City will pay almost 100% of the costs of the building itself if City Council approves them?
5. Is it true that the difference in price between the two proposals ($3 million according to Mike Gould) is LESS than fundraising and grants that the Arts Council has gotten for the Dahl project?
If these things are true, wouldn’t the City be paying the same amount for either project?
So is the Community Theatre proposal really is a better deal for the City and taxpayers, or just a better deal for the Community Theatre group?
Comment by Ida Seenthat — 4/16/2005 @ 9:59 am
32.
Good questions, Ida.
It seems like the city may be looking a $3million+ gift horse in the mouth.
Why walk away from that kind of funding?
It really does seem like the cost to the city will be the same either way –
perhaps more over time as the costs to maintain both facilities stack up.
The other key issue seems to be location. The Dahl group wants to stay downtown.
Others seem to want to move everything away from downtown, closer to the Civic Center
and the Journey Museum.
So, to your list, I would add “Is this really all just about parking space?”
Comment by bill fleming — 4/16/2005 @ 12:45 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home