BDC’s Kim Clark backpedals!

[updated May 28,2009: added audio/video links]
Among the attendees at Thursday night’s meeting, called by Maryland Senator Joan Carter Conway, was Baltimore Development Corporation’s Kim Clark.  At that time she sided with The Senator owner, Tom Kiefaber and Senator Conway when she stated:

Kimberly A. Clark Executive Vice President of the BDC

“We thought the CHAP designation was ill timed, unnecessary … And was undermining the good things we were all trying to do.”*

However, according to The Sun, columnist Kris Kaltenbach by Friday she was suddenly not so adamant about her stance:

“I don’t think it’s as much of a roadblock as some people portray it to be.”

So, we are begged to ask, “What happened between Thursday night and Friday that changed her mind?”

Could it be the fact that Friday was the date on which the city was expected to actually make the purchase of the 1st Mariner mortgage note? Was she simply playing to the supporters and the state senator?

Several meeting attendees voiced concern that since the timing of the CHAP decisions PLUS the certain city officials insistence that no one will show up for their foreclosure auction of the theatre (REPEATEDLY playing down the possibility of a person/group stepping forward to outbid the city), that a picture is partially painted enough to suggest that there have been some back room dealings in which the fate of the theatre has been decided already and officials are trying to keep any competition from entering their arena.

Now that the city will be ‘passing the ball’ to the BDC to handle the upcoming foreclosure auction and, they since they obviously expect to win the auction, the subsequent RFP (Request For Proposal), we suppose it is entirely posssible Kim Clark simply no longer feels obligated to garner favor with The Senator supporters.

* YouTube:

• Hear Kim Clark’s own statements recorded during the May 20, 2009 meeting (first 33 seconds)
• See & hear Kim Clark, also from the May 20 meeting, courtesy of Arlette Productions
  

Auction Countdown: 7 Days… “Bailout?!”

Questionable / detrimental!

Or “Why you can’t always trust the media“

The story is now everywhere in the Baltimore news media, but… Why is it portrayed as a “bailout”?!

Maybe, they just don’t have the smarts to call it what it is, a buyout (BIG difference)?

Bailout infers that taxpayer money is being spent to allow business to continue as usual. This is clearly NOT the case here. As Sean Brescia (Clearpath Management), who has been helping Senator management through this difficult time, points out:

I think this is just indicative of the typical simple-minded journalism we see in this market.  It is very easy to latch onto a popular national buzz phrase as a weak attempt at sensationalism. If these “journalists” bothered to spend any real time or effort investigating the true details of the proposed plan, they would see that Tom [Kiefaber, current owner of the theatre] is still losing virtually everything he has spent his life building, being left with substantial personal debt, and out of business with no gainful employment.  I would hardly call that a “bailout.”

City Hall realizes this proposal is a smarter way of controlling the future of a nationally recognized landmark rather than allowing it to go to a free-for-all scenario at the 1st Mariner auction.

The city would pay off 1st Mariner and become the owner of The Senator Theatre (and presumably work a deal with state officials regarding their loan amount). Once the property has a clean financial slate, they would then either offer the theatre to a “qualified operator” via:

• Property sale
  or
• Long-term lease

In this scenario the city appears as savior to a piece of its history AND has a chance to make back the money spent.

If  sloppy journalism is not the reason for the bailout characterization, one’s mind begins to wander and wonder if there are connections to certain folks who would much rather it go on the auction block, thus painting the proposal as “yet another government bailout” would be helpful, wouldn’t it?

I’d also like to know why WBAL TV decided to edit my answer to today’s Watercooler Question of the Day: “Should the city be taking an active role in bailing out the Senator Theater?”

What follows is what I sent in. The bold text represents what was omitted during the airing of the answers. At first I thought it was due to length, however, the answer that immediately followed took up two screens to display – mine only took one (I meant to be as brief & to the point as possible):

Normally, I would say no to government intervention, but this plan should not only save the last of Baltimore’s single screen movie palaces from an uncertain future, it helps to ensure that the money poured into the revitalization of Belvedere Square years ago does not go to waste. And, last but not least, it includes a promise that will allow the man who has fought for the theatre’s survival & well-being of its community for the last 20 years.

Tom Harris

Notice they said “bailing out”? I decided to leave that issue alone when formulating my answer (just brevity’s sake). Interestingly, the complete text is on the Watercooler web page, with all the misinformed folks screaming, “No bailouts”.

Yet more reminders that one has to be careful not to take news at face value,  nor a single source as ‘gospel’.

-T. Harris