If recent events are any indication, Durhamites are competing with us for use of the phrase "outrageous ambitions."
Case in point: Durham's plans to build a massive new performing arts complex.
At 2,800 seats, the proposed Durham Performing Arts Center will be bigger than the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. (2,442 seats), the largest theater on Broadway (1,940 seats), and only four seats smaller than Carnegie Hall.
Yes, the notion that Durham-with its population of 209,000-can regularly fill Carnegie Hall is undeniably ambitious. What's outrageous, though, is local officials' plan to have Duke pay for some of the Center's $44-million price tag.
Here are the sordid details: After nearly 10 years of setbacks, shortfalls and shake-ups, Durham mayor Bill Bell and Duke administrators formulated a plan to "sell" us control of Anderson Street this fall. The price? The University "donated" $2 million to the city, an amount equal to the performing arts center's emergency funding shortfall.
Although Duke had already pledged to donate $5.5 million to the center, this $2-million chaser had one important catch: Durham only got $500,000 up front. The remaining $1.5 million would be dispensed if-and only if-the City Council approved Duke's petition to control on-campus portions of Anderson Street. It eventually greenlighted the plan Nov. 12 by a vote of 5-1.
Unsurprisingly, it was only due to a technicality (of the hair-splitting variety) that this deal was permissible under North Carolina law. Despite tepid legal assurances, councilman Thomas Stith-the lone dissenter in the 5-1 vote-called the deal "quid pro quo." Angry Durham residents also chimed in, denouncing the deal as "bribery," "criminal" and a "boondoggle."
At this juncture, it's hard to disagree with them. This "gift" was a blatant attempt to evade the zoning wars that have plagued other phases of the Central Campus reconstruction plan. Though I share Duke officials' frustrations with those disputes, this was not the solution I was hoping for.
To explain why, I'll defer to Nan Keohane, who dealt with repeated demands for payouts of up to $20 million during her tenure. Commenting for a 2004 Herald-Sun article, Nan insisted that "we don't just want to be seen as a money bags, as a rich uncle that can solve all of Durham's problems." She ultimately concluded, "Donors and parents give money to Duke for projects and tuition, not to support the city."
How true. Even today, it remains unclear to me why Duke is paying for the Bull City's renaissance. And our contribution doesn't stop at alma mater's $7 million; more than $20 million in funding comes from a 1-percent increase in Durham's hotel occupancy tax, paid in part by legions of Duke students, their families and other campus visitors.
In fact, the only thing missing from this project is a financial commitment from the Durham residents themselves. Aside from Duke's contribution and the hotel tax, the Center's funding comes primarily from the Downtown Revitalization Fund and the sale of sponsorship and naming rights.
And considering that they will benefit most from the Center, I don't see why Durham residents aren't paying for at least part of it; Mayor Bell intentionally structured the deal to shield his constituents from footing the bill. If residents had more skin in this game, I can't help but think that the Center's astonishing size, its rising construction costs and its location (across the street from a jail) would be more of an issue.
Why, then are we going along with this misadventure? Beats me. In fact, there's not even a particularly good reason why we need to own Anderson Street. I'm told that "traffic safety, accessibility and crime-related issues" are all reasons why, and that legal ownership will grant us the "privilege" of repaving and lighting the street on our own terms.
John Burness added via e-mail that this money was "offered to ensure the long-term viability of Anderson as a street with a campus feel," and that it may be involved in plans for an on-campus "arts corridor." Yet explanations as to why this should cost Duke $2 million (especially since the deal saves the city the cost of future maintenance) have not been forthcoming.
So, Duke administrators, it's time to face the facts. The millions of dollars you've frittered away in the form of payoffs, "donations," "contributions" and other financial transactions all add up to one thing: Duke behaves more like a sugar daddy than a partner these days, and the impulse is spreading.
Even some Duke professors have jumped on the bribe-and-let-bribe bandwagon. My favorite among them has to be Joe Dibona, an associate professor in the education department, whose Nov. 8 letter to the Herald-Sun suggested a $3-million payoff in the lacrosse case. Although he doesn't specify who's paying, Dibona did note that $1.5 million should go to the alleged victim and $1.5 million to the attorneys, which would "serve the interests of any parties concerned."
According to Dibona, the payoff would avert more "senseless and bombastic rhetoric in the lacrosse case." He also assured me in an e-mail that if the "complainaince [sic] withdrew all charges, the students would be free of any lingering doubt over what happened." This is presumably why Dibona thinks $3 million would be "a small price to pay for the solution of this painful affair."
Decide for yourself whether or not you find Dibona's suggestions credible; for my part, I found the proposal to be as classless as it is misinformed. But the point is that Dibona's proposal is not so different from what passes for institutional policy these days, and I think it's about time we held administrators-and ourselves-to a higher standard.
And if administrators won't listen to their better judgment, perhaps they'll listen to Nan Keohane. Uncle Moneybags we are not.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.