DAP, MiLB + City Council: A tale of two dailies

My entrenched economic self-interest in, you know, having a day job precludes me from making it to City Council work sessions in the middle of Thursday afternoon, so I have to rely on press reports and friends to get the low-down on what happened.

Though folks sometimes complain about Durham's coverage by two major daily papers (the only city in N.C. to be so) tending to overemphasize crime and negative stories, on days like today, it's good to compare.

Here's what Matt Dees of the N&O had to say about the discussion of the Durham Athletic Park renovations at yesterday's Council meeting:

The price of becoming the center of the Minor League Baseball universe appears to be going up by $1 million.

And initial indications Thursday were that the city might be willing to pay it.

...

Council member Thomas Stith III, who is running against Bell for mayor, wondered whether the money should be used for more pressing needs than a ballpark.

"We all know we have infrastructure issues," he said. "What is the difference in getting a $5 million DAP as opposed to getting a $4 million DAP when we've got roads we can't drive on?"

But Bell and other council members said the economic impact and prestige that a world-class facility would bring to Durham would be worth the extra money.

On the other hand, Ray Gronberg's piece in the Herald-Sun was headlined "Athletic Park Proposal Hits Snag," and reported--

A deal to make the historic Durham Athletic Park the home base of Minor League Baseball Inc.'s nationwide training programs is ready for a City Council vote this month, but some officials are questioning its cost.

The sticking point for council members Thomas Stith and Diane Catotti is that officials and designers believe the city needs to spend $1 million more for the old park's repair than it had planned.

 

 

...

But Stith questioned why officials should undertake that kind of money shuffle when one of the things the old bonds were supposed to pay for was street paving -- a basic maintenance task city officials concede is lagging, to the point they might ask voters this fall for another $20 million in borrowing authority to catch up.

The proposed use of the interest income raises questions about priorities, and about how officials are so easily able to come up with so much cash when there's supposedly not enough to go around, said Stith, who's running for mayor this fall against incumbent Bill Bell.

"We found a million somewhere, and the average citizen will ask how we did that," he added. "It fuels cynicism that we don't operate in a transparent fashion."

Catotti, who more often disagrees with Stith in council debates, made it clear that she also has questions about priorities.   

...

Other council members voiced a willingness to ante up the extra $1 million, in part because of the anticipated spark the stadium could provide to the neighborhoods just north of downtown.

"The question for Durham at this stage is do we hit a double or hit a home run and possibly win the league championship," Councilman Eugene Brown said. "We're not just restoring an athletic park, we're restoring an integral part of Durham history, bringing together various elements of our community."

                             

My off-the-cuff reaction in comparing these articles was, two council members does not a snag make. Sounds like Brown and Bell are behind it, and I'd imagine that McFadden would support the mayor on this. Woodard's been a booster for Durham's revitalization and I'd imagine he'd support the deal along with Clement. As long as either McFadden or Clement held, the vote is sure to pass.

But, like I said, I wasn't there. My question to those who were there yesterday is, what was the tone and the mood? Was it one of a 'snag' or was this instead a case of electioneering?

Note that I don't mean this to criticize Dees or Gronberg, who are two of the better reporters covering stories in the Bull City. Some of this just shows that journalists (or their editors) get the same story in different ways, or take different tacts. But our unique two-paper market does occasionally make for interesting forks like this one.

Comments

[JDC]

"What is the difference in getting a $5 million DAP as opposed to getting a $4 million DAP when we've got roads we can't drive on?"

It's always roads, roads, roads... need more roads, gotta fix the roads... What Durham roads are in such disrepair that motorists can't drive on them? Have these guys ever seen real potholes? Ever been to a northern city that gets more than one inch of snow each year? Those are the kind of roads you'd think they'd be talking about, but I haven't seen 'em. Not in the Bull City anyway.

[Michael Bacon]

Kevin,

I had my nose in my laptop fussing over C-H neighborhood stuff, but my general impression was that the million will be spent. I sympathize with Catotti and Stith on this, and yes, JDC, I'd say that our roads are bad now and there isn't nearly enough funding being allocated on a yearly basis to keep them from continually getting worse. But this $1 million is essentially coming from higher than expected investment returns on unspent capital bond money. It's a one-time shot. The biggest thing that the roads need is ongoing funding support, not just a $1 million shot in the arm. My favorite option for that would be a nickel of local gas tax, but we don't have legislature approval for that right now.

My guess is that the $1 million gets approved.

[Ray Gronberg]

I don't write the headlines, guys. Whoever did maybe went a little far in terming this a "snag," as like Michael I suspect the money will be approved. Something like "DAP money questioned" would have captured things a bit better.

And yes, there are bad roads in the city. The whole point is that you have to repave regularly and avoid the whole northern-roads syndrome. Once a road gets to the point where it has noticeable alligator cracking, you've got a couple years to tend to it before it starts falling apart. Once it's past that point, you have to rebuild it, at considerably greater expense.

[Michael Bacon]

Thanks for commenting, Ray. Any chance your Paxson overlords will let you fire up a blog anytime soon?

[Ray Gronberg]

Michael, I suggest lobbying Bob Ashley if you think that'd be a good idea.

[GK]

I'd second that. Bring on the Gronblog!

Gary