Someone changed the rules.
Last September, many folks objected that the taxpayer funded Greensboro Convention and Visitors Bureau was allowed to send out a brochure to all Greensboro residents. The mailer was was clearly an endorsement for the new downtown baseball stadium. Our City Council had no objection to the brochure entitled: The Downtown Stadium Prohibition Ordinance: Facts and Questions (p1, p2, p3), even though the "facts" were biased toward allowing the stadium to be constructed and the "answers" only represented one side of the issue. The brochure was intended to sway public opinion, and it worked.
Last week, the City Council objected (N&R) to the use of taxpayer's money to sway public opinion on the issue of a library user fee for non-Greensboro residents. The library produced bookmarks that urged folks to "Keep Our Libraries Free" and they made a similar plea on the library's website.
Several members of the Council lost their minds over such a crass display of political boosterism and had both the bookmarks and the website pulled. The article quotes Councilman Perkins as being, " 'very upset' that the library would distribute a message that opposed the council." Councilwoman Carmany said, "I think that was rather inappropriate." For the record - I agree with both of them - but why the double standard?
Also, yesterday's Greensboro News & Observer featured a "point/counterpoint" piece (not posted) on whether or not the new Burlington Industries headquarters should be razed in order to make room for a new Starmount development on Friendly Avenue.
On one side was Benjamin Briggs, Executive Director of Preservation Greensboro, Inc. who stridently argues that the building should be saved. Briggs says, "Preservation Greensboro, Inc. views the building as a critical site to portray our city's unique heritage and character. It is a trophy from a productive and prosperous period in our history." Briggs then quotes PGI president Bill Seawell on the matter, "Future generations will value design and architecture differently than we do today. By preserving important buildings today, we provide them the option of making those value judgements, instead of relegating their history to photographs." For the record - I agree with Briggs and Seawell.
On the other side of the issue was an almost unintelligible argument for tearing it down by GGO writer Sam Heib who advocated for the building's demolition... or at least I'm, pretty sure he did... anyway... back to double standards.
In my opinion, PGI should have been just as vocal when it was suggested that the original, and arguably more significant (1927), Burlington Headquarters was going to be razed to make room for a baseball stadium Their silence on the issue was puzzling.
I am very pleased that PGI is attempting to sway public opinion over the fate of the new Burlington Headquarters. However, I am still dissappointed that they punted on first down when confronted by the powerful pro-baseball stadium crowd (talk about your mixed metaphors) over the fate of the old Headquarters. Historic preservation can be a messy bit of warfare but Greensboro's official preservationist organization didn't put up much of a skirmish over the old Burlington Building.
Both of the above inconsistencies are glaring to me. For the baseball stadium, those who condemned taxpayer supported issue advocacy and supported historic preservation were labeled as "naysayers". Now, under similar circumstances, taxpayer funded boosterism is condemned as "not productive" and historic preservation advocacy in Greensboro is again considered to be a noble - but usually futile - effort.
What was it about a baseball stadium that changed the rules of engagement? One word... money.
10:52:12 AM 
|
