THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 8, 1995 TAG: 9510070002
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
LENGTH: Medium: 68 lines
Because of the failure of Nauticus to produce promised results, the project requires a bailout by Norfolk taxpayers. This fact caused Dan Ballard (Another View, Oct. 2) to answer in advance critics he pictured as ``dancing in the aisles'' on seeing the box office confirm their reservations about the project. Ballard's answer, in brief, is that Nauticus hasn't failed, can't fail and everything is coming up roses.
He writes: ``So the attendance projections and the pledge that Nauticus would be self-sustaining were too ambitious. That does not make Nauticus a mistake. . . . That attendance has not yet reached projected results does not mean that it won't in the future. And even if it never does, that alone would not make it a failure. . . .''
Maybe not, but this argument also is too ambitious. A wilted lily can bear only so much gilding. Ballard attempts to justify the project solely on the merits of the premise that produced it - Norfolk's need to be competitive for tourist dollars with Virginia Beach and Williamsburg. That need may be indisputable as Ballard argues in noting that tourism ``accounts for more money, jobs and income to our cities than any other private enterprise.''
In fairness, moreover, the shortfalls of Nauticus deserve to be judged partially within a context of an overall waterfront revival which: (1) without regard to the bottom line, appeals to the eye and spirit and (2) reflects favorably on the determination of Norfolk's leaders not to yield to the infirmities of an inner city cut off from most avenues of growth.
But, of course, there is a bottom line. One for Nauticus and one for redevelopment projects as a whole. And the more the line is favorable, and accepted as such by the public, the less inclination will be felt to give verbal spankings to citizens impertinent enough to question spending priorities and the funding of major projects having murky prospects.
Norfolk has been in the redevelopment business for decades, long enough to develop a knack for anticipating and responding equably and forthrightly to citizen concerns. From the start there were doubts about Nauticus - going not to the need to attract tourist dollars but instead, to whether Nauticus promised to do the job.
The concept seemed amorphous: Would Nauticus excite and entertain? Could it be defined in simple terms that would resonate at home and in the tourist trade? Television ads recently aired may have some bearing. Their pitch focused on favorable reviews of Nauticus in national newspapers. These may be most helpful when supported by word-of-mouth enthusiasm about specified attractions, a prize that Nauticus hasn't yet won.
Box-office results speak for themselves and rather dolefully when they fall far short of great expectations. These were created by backers of a project which seems more of an invention than a new model of a proven concept. What showbiz proficiency among city fathers led them to believe the city was ready to chart new waters?
It is not possible to spin a weak draw into a strong one, and any seeming effort to do so risks generating more of the skepticism such efforts are designed to dispel. It is possible, presumably, to retrofit a project; if the lion's lame, bring on the giraffe - a search for which surely is the proper response to sad tidings.
Norfolk prevailed against a suit brought by citizens seeking a referendum on whether bonds needed to build Nauticus should be approved. Some cities that have excelled in growth projects over long periods routinely take bond issues to the public. Doing so requires a discipline of building public support through finding and responding to citizen concerns. This, of course, can be done voluntarily, and common sense counsels it. by CNB