Why does CAA oppose building an amphitheater at Metropolitan
Park?
Citizens for Amphitheater Awareness (CAA) first became concerned
about the City's plans for a new amphitheater in March of 1997 when a
group of Jacksonville leaders went to Virginia to tour amphitheaters in
that state. The Jacksonville contingent came back praising the Virginia
Beach amphitheater, yet they went in winter, when no shows were
scheduled, and they never spoke to residents who might be affected by
noise from the shows.
After news of that trip, local citizens formed CAA to independently research large urban amphitheaters around the country. After spending hundreds of hours speaking to citizens, elected officials, law enforcement officers, lawyers and television and newspaper reporters around the country, CAA concluded that large urban amphitheaters create significant economic, social and legal problems for the communities where they are located.
If Mayor John Delaney is successful at developing a 17,000 seat amphitheater at Metropolitan Park, the facility would create the problems experienced in other cities. It would also take away a scarce Jacksonville resource - an urban park. For these reasons, CAA opposes the Mayor's plan for Metropolitan Park.
Loss of a Public Park
Metropolitan Park was created as a public, urban park, for the
enjoyment of citizens in the urban core. It was never intended to be
used for private enterprise. The Mayor's proposal would evade the
spirit of that original agreement.
Metropolitan Park was paid for with state and federal monies including a Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant that came with restrictions including the number of paid events that could be held at the Park. CAA obtained public records last summer that showed the City was aggressively pursing options to get out from under those restrictions.
The Mayor first settled on an "Obsolescence" plan. It was approved by the State but rejected by the National Park Service. The plan called for taking away a public riverfront park from taxpayers in order to exploit it for commercial gain. The plan submitted to the State and National Park Service attempted to mitigate the loss of the "performance-based" part of Metropolitan Park (virtually all of it) by extending the Park's boundary to include the adjacent "Kids Kampus." Kids Kampus is already designated parkland. This smoke and mirrors tactic asks citizens to give up something in exchange for something we already have
The City's latest plan, "Conversion" basically asks for the National Park Service to give the City three years to come up with 10 acres of parkland it can "swap" for Metropolitan Park. While the Mayor claims the Park would still be a public park, the City's own documents show otherwise.
The City's Draft Proposal for the conversion process states: "Proposed use of the amphitheater includes over 30 ticketed concerts per year, the price of which would exclude a large element of the public. Also, improvements to the park and amphitheater would require for the grounds to be locked when not in use as a concert venue to preclude vandalism."
A December 1996 letter from the Parks Recreation and Entertainment Director to Mike Weinstein states: "it may well be that the Federal National Park Service will determine that due to the extent of the proposed development, the entire Metropolitan Park property must be included in the conversion process as it is in essence entirely being converted to other uses."
Noise Pollution
The Mayor says he can employ the "latest technology" to make the
new amphitheater even quieter than the existing one. No other city has
been able to do that.
Mountain View, California operates "Shoreline" amphitheater. Mountain View has been sued by neighboring Palo Alto over noise coming from the facility. The two sides have been in and out of court since 1993.
You cannot buy property anywhere in Palo Alto without signing a supplementary disclosure form stating that you are aware of the noise from Shoreline. Palo Alto residents up to 6 miles away from the concert facility hear the noise in their homes. Surely if any city has a vested interest in finding a technological solution to its noise pollution problem, it is Mountain View.
Yet the San Jose Mercury News reported in November, 1996, "So far there is no miracle technological fix to redirect the sound waves away from unwilling Palo Alto listeners." "A Mountain View study on noise bursting from Shoreline Amphitheater concludes that not much - if anything can be done to deaden the perennial rumpus washing over surrounding communities...The range of remedies rejected by the city staff included a basic, lower-budget sound wall to a high-tech computer system that cancels escaping music by generating a dampening field of sound waves.
Other California amphitheaters including the "granddaddy" of them all, "Pacific amphitheater," have ended up in court over noise pollution. Pacific was finally shut down after 10 years of lawsuits, many over noise. At one point, a judge ruled that anyone who had ever owned or occupied property within a mile of the Pacific Amphitheater could be included in a class action lawsuit.
Chicago's Tenley Park amphitheater has been in court over noise, and last year, Florida State Senator, Tom Rossin intervened to keep the Breakers West community from suing Cellar Door's Coral Sky Amphitheater in West Palm Beach.
On January 30, 1998, The Sacramento Bee reported Cal State Expo was being torn down because the amphitheater owners and concert promoter failed to reach an agreement to bring future shows to the facility. Part of the reason for this was the lawsuit brought against the facility over noise. Residents won concessions regarding noise limits and earlier curfews. Northern California newspapers reported in 1997, that the promoter said he could no longer book acts in the amphitheater if those restrictions were imposed.
The Mayor has said he won't build an amphitheater if it creates a noise problem for residents and yet there is no question that these types of facilities are noise polluters. The City's own sound study shows the proposed amphitheater at Metropolitan Park it will blast Downtown and Eastside residents with much higher noise levels than those communities get from the concerts at the current bandshell.
Abe Sustaita, the architect who co-presented the City's sound study to the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission and Downtown Development Authority began his presentation by saying that it wasn't possible to build an open air facility like this without bothering some part of the community. For that reason, he stated these facilities are most successful, from a noise perspective, when they are built in rural areas. He also said there is a trade-off between noise and money. You have to spend more money to make the things quieter.
Given that, the study recommended, "Orientation of the broadcast axis towards the least sensitive areas given factors such as distance, residential sparcity and existing attenuation barriers." A layman's translation: The folks on the Southside are mad as hell, and it would blast them if we pointed it towards them. The river offers no sound attenuation, in fact it helps transmit sound, so let's aim it at Downtown and Eastside.
The study's sound pattern projects the noise pollution from the proposed facility will blast Downtown and residents in the Eastside community with 95-104 decibels. That level is equivalent to standing next to a lawnmower. That's over all of Downtown east of Main Street, and Eastside up to R.L. Brown School on the Haines Street Expressway.
What does this do to the City's plans to develop downtown residential properties. How many people will want to live near the source of such noise pollution. The Environmental Noise Impact Study done for Virginia Beach recognizes this conflicting land use and states: "Much like an airport or industrial area, it is not prudent policy to allow future residential development near an amphitheater site from a noise intrusion perspective."
First Amendment Freedoms in Conflict with "Community
Standards"
A couple active in CAA went to Virginia Beach over Fourth of July
weekend, 1997 to see a show at the GTE Virginia Beach Amphitheater and
talk with neighbors firsthand. They spent $ 90.00 on two tickets, but
stayed only one hour at the all day Lollapalooza Festival. The band
they listened to, "Snoop Doggy Dog," sung mostly about killing police
officers and sex acts.
The couple went into surrounding communities and talked with neighbors who can hear the noise in their homes up to three miles away. Residents have said Cellar Door promised the community that it would never bring the Lollapaloza Festival to Virginia Beach, because the community's standards were too high. Two years later, Cellar Door broke that promise.
The Mayor says he can keep the same thing from happening here because we can enact a community standards law. The city of Burbank, California tried to keep the operators of its Starlite Bowl from bringing in acts the city thought were objectionable. The city was sued, and Burbank lost its case and appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The High Court left intact the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said the city had violated the rights of the concert promoter by refusing to approve six proposed performances on the basis of content.
In 1997, the so called "Satanic" band, "Marilyn Manson," won
an injunction against the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority
which tried to block the band's performance at Meadowlands stadium.
Surely the Mayor must know a community standards act will be challenged
in court and found unconstitutional.
Law Enforcement Concerns
As reported in various communities, these types of facilities
pose law enforcement problems. The San Diego State Chief of Police
said, "Have the ambulances ready for injuries and the City's checkbook
ready for liability suits."
And an exhaustive report on amphitheaters produced by the City of Poway, California, which defeated an amphitheater proposal states: "Police Department officials felt that controlling a facility with a rock music venue was extremely difficult because of noise, destructive tendencies of the audience, alcohol and drug problems, reckless driving after a high intensity concert, or accident involving driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol."
And the Columbus Dispatch, June 24,1997 reported, "The fences are up and the fires are out at Polaris Amphitheater. A cancelled Osbourne performance last week sent fans into a frenzy, setting fires and tearing down fences."
Economics
The Mayor has promised that he won't build the amphitheater if
it does not make economic sense. The Mayor's economic feasibility study
for the amphitheater projects almost 4 million dollars in discretionary
spending will be taken out of the local economy each year. This money
would otherwise surely go into to the pockets of local business owners.
That does not make economic sense.
UNF Economics Professor, Doctor Lou Woods, who has done extensive work for the city, analyzed the Fishkind Feasibility study and determined, "any reallocation of spending would have negative consequences for existing businesses as the dollars are moved away from their activities to concerts at the amphitheater."
Dr. Woods concludes approximately $7 million dollars will be reallocated away from spending on what's called the "fees and admissions" part of entertainment spending. This includes: golf, tennis, bowling, sporting events and movie theaters.
The breakeven analysis in the City's economic feasibility study calls for 6000 people to attend 30 shows at an average ticket price of $20. Add to that $10 in parking and various user fees tacked onto the price of each ticket, $675,000 in sponsorships, 40 box seats sold at $10,000 each and minimum annual concession and merchandise sales of $450,000.
All this must happen just to breakeven, yet the Fishkind study makes some gross assumptions. One is that the percentage of household income spent on entertainment in Jacksonville is equal to the national level. Just a 2 % differential from the national figure would decrease the amount the study assumes the average Jacksonville household spends on entertainment by nearly $1000 a year.
Incidentally, the Virginian Pilot reported only 5 of the 33 shows brought capacity crowds during the 1997 concert season to Cellar Door's--GTE Virginia Beach Amphitheater. Two thirds of those shows could have been handled in our Coliseum.
The City of Poway, California Report on Amphitheaters states: "Costa Mesa (California) did not reap secondary or tertiary benefits associated with the amphitheater. There was no measurable sales increase in local hotels and restaurants or significant retail sales."
More Urgent Needs
Let's ask a basic question here. Is it the City's business to
be in the entertainment business when there are so many more urgent
needs? The Jacksonville Business Journal came out in an
editorial against the Mayor's proposal for this very reason. "It's time
for the City to use tax money to care for the needs of the taxpayers,
rather than spending money to entertain them."
The Mayor says it's a quality of life issue. Yet Jacksonville is not a Timbuktu outpost without a variety of recreation and entertainment options available for citizens. CAA agrees with the Jacksonville Business Journal. This is not the best use of $23 million dollars in taxpayer money.
