Column for Nov. 24, 2011

I am looking at the charter for The Town of Selma,. I am looking for its general contractor’s license or business development license therein. I am also reading through NC General Statues Chapter 160A, which specifies how towns are to operate. I am not a lawyer and won’t drag through every jot and tittle, but I don’t see the power of a town to become a venture capitalist. The only thing I have read that even remotely comes close is “A city may contract with and appropriate money to any person, association, or corporation, in order to carry out any public purpose that the city is authorized by law to engage in.” That would be a very broad interpretation.

I do see the power of a town government to regulate certain business, just not to create or subsidize them. Towns are given the right to levy taxes for various purposes, including “to provide public auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers”, the key word being public. One statute (160A‑279) says, “Whenever a city or county is authorized to appropriate funds to any public or private entity which carries out a public purpose, the city or county may, in lieu of or in addition to the appropriation of funds, convey by private sale to such an entity any real or personal property which it owns; provided no property acquired by the exercise of eminent domain may be conveyed under this section; provided that no such conveyance may be made to a for‑profit corporation.”

In last week’s “The Selma News”, I read with interest the article on The Rudy Theater. The article did not seem clear on the ownership status of the theater, though the verbiage did mention "the Rudy Theater will transition from your company to the Town of Selma..." That leads me to believe that the theater is privately owned by them, not the town. Thus, I checked with one of our elected officials on the matter and verified this. It also seems that the concept of Selma becoming a theater owner, partner, or builder was something sprung upon the Town Council, which makes me wonder about some of the politics behind this whole plan. I am wary of the idea of a town of only 6,100 (according to the town’s own web site) going into debt to finance a sizable private business venture.

If the property belongs to the theater production company, why would the town consider using taxpayer money to renovate/expand/rebuild a private business? Though The Rudy is a nice thing to have in the town, I have a hard time believing that we generate enough tax revenue from either the theater or its patrons to pay for the public expenditure for its expansion. If we are looking at building a new facility, why? If Rudy Theatre Productions could afford to buy The Rudy and even do some renovations, they can build a new facility more to their liking themselves. For the town to consider both building a new facility and taking over the old is a double cost in that we will pay for the new construction plus for any renovations and upkeep of the old facility.

Just on principle alone, I would have a problem with the concept of the town paying for a private facility. Why would we subsidize the leisure activities of a few people? First, the majority of Rudy patrons are probably not local townspeople. I see buses come in from all over for their quality shows, and I doubt seriously that they heavily patronize our local establishments. Especially since, we have no restaurants to speak of in downtown any more, so we are not getting sales or meals tax revenue from them. Next, if the people are from out of town, why would the town subsidize residents of other municipalities to partake of their chosen leisure activities like live shows?

This is my major quibble with the building of sports facilities for football, basketball, and baseball teams. A sports team owner decides that he wants a nice, new stadium and threatens to leave town if he doesn’t get one. The town, state, and county involved generally capitulate and either perform major renovations (a la Five County Stadium) or build something new (like Charlotte, Minnesota, or other major sports areas) and the taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars to support the leisure activity of sports fans and for the employment of professional athletes. At least with major sports teams, the local economy generally sees a big benefit for hotels, restaurants, facility rent, naming rights, concessions, sales, local employment, etc.

I personally like to go to the firing range, but the town does not supply a shooting range for my enjoyment. There are more people who own firearms in Selma than go to the Rudy, I guarantee. Why would we not enjoy taxpayer subsidy for our recreation? Is it fair to subsidize one activity over another? For what purpose? The prestige of having a theater in our town, even if it is of little economic benefit? If we are going to subsidize businesses, since Selma chose to become "The Antique Mecca of the South", why would we not subsidize privately owned antique business to attract more patrons and boost sales tax revenues and the occupancy rate of downtown businesses? Why this one niche of business over others?

Let’s ask the citizens of Roanoke Rapids and Halifax County how the public expense of building a performance theater worked out for them. I drive to Roanoke Rapids regularly for business and pass by the empty theater often. They had a tenant with some major backing lined up and even performing regularly. Millions of dollars and several legal actions later, the town has ended up owning the entire complex and is deep in debt.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for allowing The Rudy to expand their own facility and am in support of even using the designated revenues set aside for marketing through The Johnston County Visitors Bureau to promote the theater along with other attractions in town. I am just not in favor of the town building their facility for them at taxpayer expense.