Washington Pavilion

The Pavilion roof may be in trouble?

I told you a few weeks ago that I found out another contractor was putting the city in a bind. The city owns the Pavilion so we are responsible financially for any building upgrades, and the Pavilion takes millions each year in maintenance costs from the entertainment tax. Replacing the thingies on the roof cost us, ALOT! So the ‘rumor’ is that while replacing the ‘thingies’ they tore up the rubber roof (you really should not walk on them, let alone carry equipment and materials across it.) Not sure what the city is doing to get relief, but if they had a half a brain they would threaten a lawsuit to get the money. I was told that the repairs will cost over $1 Million. Another city project, another bad contractor. I thought we did RFP’s so we could select the best contractor? And where were the city building inspectors during this process? Were they not checking on the progress? And if so, couldn’t they see the roof damage? Someone told me once, “The city building inspectors are afraid of ladders . . . and the outdoors.”

Lally Cooler is gonna Lally Cost Yah

So with only announcing the headliners and NO opening acts, the Pavilion is attempting to sell tickets to an event no one knows much about;

I often assumed that the event was going to be FREE like JazzFest or at a greatly reduced price. If you would have opened it to the masses you would have made up the entry fees in beer money. Also, this is supposed to be some kind of anniversary celebration for the Pavilion, and after heisting millions from taxpayers over the years in taxes and subsidies you would think they would put on a backyard party for us for FREE. But that is not how it works at the WashSnotty Pavilion, we can only reward those who supported us, you know, families that can afford to drop $1,000 a night watching a Broadway Musical. Can’t wait to hear what they charge for a 12oz. Monday Light? I wonder if the Pavilion will have ‘Event Funding’ so you can pay for your beer and ticket with monthly payments? Just don’t take the bike trail to the event, you will end up in the river 🙁

Councilor Soehl the defender of parking!

Curtist the Blurtist is at it again, defending parking. Yesterday during the informational where the city turned a regular old ice rink into a $16 Million Dollar entertainment facility (for no reason and for something NO ONE in the community was asking for) Curt didn’t question the extravagant transformation and being $12 million over budget instead he cried about parking.

The rink can take up to 250 peeps at a time and the parking lot holds 45 cars. Now there is on-street parking, a parking ramp next door and plenty of parking at Falls Park. Here’s the other thing, you are going to go ice skate, that is physical activity similar to walking, so why not park a few blocks away and walk there?! There is plenty of parking. When the Levitt has over 5,000 people attend a concert, I never see issues with parking. Where do all those people park?! Also, let’s state the obvious, besides the grand opening, this place will be dead most of the time. The only time you will see people there is if it is decent temps on a Saturday. Great Bear has proven people are winter wimps in Sioux Falls. And if it is below 20 degrees, good luck getting people on the ice especially since we have plenty of options for indoor skating in Sioux Falls at private facilities. I know people who live in SF and work DT and had no clue the place was even being built. I think if the parking lot only had 5 stalls, it would be enough. This place will be bleeding taxpayers for decades! But at least we have another wedding barn in town!!! And that’s the other thing. What if you have 200 people attending a wedding on a Saturday Night during the open skating season? Then you will have a parking issue. I can’t understand why we just didn’t build a simple warming shed and leave it at that? The things we let rich donors cook up with our tax dollars in Sioux Falls is getting ridiculous.

The Romans referred to this as ‘Bread and Circuses’;

In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction, or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace, by offering a palliative: for example food (bread) or entertainment (circuses). Juvenal originally used it to decry the “selfishness” of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase implies a population’s erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.

Taxdollars should never be spent on entertainment. Once Poops bankrupts this city with his Convention Center proposal maybe people will finally come to terms with having all these play palaces while driving over 6 inches of packed ice and potholes like a pimples on a teenagers ass. And if you think the Feds will be kicking anything in over the next 4 years that ain’t happening.

The Pavilion to open an Ice Ribbon Bar?

I had heard rumors about this a few years back that since the City now can pull liquor licenses for their own facilities they would open a full liquor bar and restaurant at the new ice ribbon (Items #39-40). I don’t want to get into some moral argument about whether or not we should be selling alcohol at a city park facilities, we sell them at the golf courses and Great Bear, BUT, should the city be competing with other food and beverage providers in that downtown area? Or as one city official said to me ‘Why not contract with a PRIVATE restauranteur?’ The argument of drinking and skating aside being less then safe, I think it is bizarre we are building this facility but it seems the focus is on food and beverage? I also find it funny that a single beer will likely cost you DOUBLE of what a rental fee would be for the rink (ever bought a beer at the Pavilion for a show?)

I knew the Pavilion’s Darrin Smith had his claws in this contract for a couple of years now, so no surprise they are getting it, but like buying the Sanford Fitness Center, we are NOW competing with private business for absolutely NO reason. So is this an ice ribbon or a bar? Maybe right before they turn if off in the Spring they could fill it full of Jello Shots!?

OTHER CITY COUNCIL TIDBITS

Besides opening another bar downtown we don’t need the city is also having a Riverline District meeting, but it is entirely an Executive Session. So how is it that just regular folks that get appointed to a bogus committee get to see legal documents in an executive session? If they can be shared with them, normal members of the public, then those docs need to be shared in public with the public at the same time. This whole process is sooooo crooked it is not even funny.

Item #6, sub #3, is a funny one. $62K to tell the city the Canaries Stadium is a dump.

Item #42, Notice in this lease agreement where we are allowing Sanford to continue to use space we bought from them at the Wellness Center, it has NO dollar amount, just that it will be over $500 a year. Betcha they are leasing the space for $501 dollars a year. Wonder if any of the councilors will ask the actual lease amount.

Item #43, The mayor appoints a VP of banking to be on the Parks Board, and who says that board isn’t made up of regular folks!!! Because what we need is more rich people on that board! They just are not represented enough!

Items #44-45, the council moves to make Jim David boss of everyone, even the City Clerk. Weird. Has the city council lost confidence in their City Clerk?

Item #46, council makes a bunch of benign changes to policies. For instance, they are changing ‘public comment’ to ‘public input’. Doesn’t really matter, same thing, except that input is a broader definition of comment.

Item #47, Seems councilors want to ‘lock in’ a price on future rec bonds. Good Luck with that. They did that with Drake Springs then after they lost the election stole money from that pot for other park projects. A snot rag would have a greater legal standing then this resolution.

On a weird note, Harris may win the election by taking IOWA!!!!!!

Washington Pavilion proposes amazing local entertainment series, but should it be Free?

I’m a local visual artist and have worked with local musicians over the years and have argued for a long time they are extremely underpaid and I will go fisticuffs with anybody who wants to cheat local performers (it happens a lot).

That’s why I think this program series is awesome;

Officials with the Washington Pavilion have announced the lineup for a new performance series, called “Live & Local.”

The series will include monthly performances showcasing Sioux Falls area talent, such as singers, dancers, comedians, actors, musicians, artists and more.

The stickler?

Tickets for all nine dates go on sale at 10 a.m. Friday. The price is $20 for a ticket plus tax. Visit WashingtonPavilion.org/LiveandLocal to view the full performance lineup and additional details, as well as to purchase tickets.

The average price of a ticket to see national acts at local music venues runs you around $10-15. So for $2 to see a show (there are nine shows) it is a pretty good deal.

I can’t remember the last time I was charged a cover to see a local act (they used be able to charge) that’s because the venue presenting them budgets for their compensation.

As a local performance series there is absolutely NO reason the Pavilion could not have found a sponsor for this so everyone could attend for FREE.

Better yet, cut the salary of the director to fund it.

They did the same thing in the Visual Arts Center charging to see regional visual artists (I’m all for charging for National or International exhibits due to the cost of insurance, etc.) going against their promise of keeping the VAC open for FREE.

I actually think it is petty to charge $2 to see a local act, you could make up that revenue in beverage sales. This has ‘experiment’ written all over it.

I am often amazed when a local arts non-profit presents amazing programming for local artists then turns around and says, BTW, it’s going to cost you. But what makes this different is that the Pavilion receives millions in subsidies from the city in building maintenance and operating expenses EACH YEAR (roof replacement, for example).

I’m sure they are looking to see what kind of interest there is and what kind of revenue could be pulled in. I have no doubt that people interested in seeing these shows will plop down the $20, but do they really have to?