Rock Fan to City Manager: The ’60s Are Over, Man

Dear City Manager Jorge Gonzalez:

As one who attended many concerts at the Fillmore East in the few years that it existed (1968-71), I well remember the kind of concerts presented there [“Live Takes Jackie,” published Oct. 19]. It was mostly the “traditional” sex, drugs and rock and roll. Since this was the height of the psychedelic period and the midst of many “summers of love,” the connotation connected to the word “Fillmore,” no matter who owns the name now, will always be that of the Bill Graham period of late ’60s and early ’70s rock — not even pop or folk.

Live Nation owns the name now. I feel that they are seriously misrepresenting the history of the Fillmore name. Those artists who would be pulled to the Gleason by the Fillmore name are mainly traditional rockers of the mid-range. I do not think that Springsteen, Bon Jovi or any other really big names would come to a 2,700-seat venue because it was partially dubbed a Fillmore. The original Fillmore drew the Who (they did the original Tommy at the Fillmore East), Janis Joplin, etc., but at the same time major groups were playing Madison Square Garden.

Because of this connotation, I suggest you and all of those who are now negotiating with Live Nation think long and hard before you allow it to add the Fillmore name to the Jackie Gleason. In addition to making the full name quite awkward, it sends the message that the venue will be mostly rock (and comedy, of the HBO standup kind, unsuitable for children), with a bit of what is left of folk tossed in, but I doubt any country/western. The history of the Fillmore West includes some performances of alternative theater in San Francisco, some productions that were so sexually explicit that they could not find venues in the legitimate theaters of the city. I see no indication that Live Nation is doing any of that kind of theater in any of their venues, and a 2,700-seat auditorium is too big for such anyhow. The Fillmore West seated only 1,000.
Bottom line: Try to get rid of the Fillmore name, and get Live Nation to operate or help program the Colony and the Byron Carlyle theaters and, if the New World Symphony allows it, the Lincoln. Live theater is more likely to be drawn to those smaller venues than to the Gleason. I will long remember the performance of Sondheim’s Company I saw at the Lincoln a few years ago. It is perfect for such performances.

Instead of the Fillmore name, why not try to get them to call it “Live Nation at the Jackie Gleason.” That’s clean and simple and tells it like it is. They could use the poster frames on the side of the theater to display their name prominently along with the programs. All of the acts they represent surely know the power of their name, but they may not (especially the Latin ones) be too excited about the Fillmore name.

Keep up your good work for the city; I agree with the commission vote of confidence last week. You are doing what you deem is best for Miami Beach, both fiscally and culturally. That what you think best (the Cirque fiasco) may not be what I think best makes for interesting debate. In the Cirque case, the people spoke. That is what we need more.

As we learned in ancient times, “Beware Greeks bearing gifts.” I think the gift of the Fillmore name may be a Trojan horse.

Richard Buck
Miami Beach 

***

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Dark Cloud

Dear SunPost,

Concerning the article on the sidewalks in Miami [Wakefield, “Welcome to Beautiful Downtown Miami,” published Oct. 12]:

I have questioned for years, “Who in their right mind puts tiles on an outdoor sidewalk that is inevitably going to get wet and therefore slippery causing people to fall?”

The fact of the matter is that the “powers that be” in Miami are no better, and possibly worse, than those of previous administrations. Mayor Manny Diaz and his underlings would have you believe that a few “pie in the sky” luxury condominiums in downtown make everything just wonderful. And with a lot of smoke and mirrors, many of the mindless sheep in the public are convinced and buy wholeheartedly into this lie.

The truth of the matter is: Traffic gridlock is an afterthought. This is obvious with the “new” re-routing of traffic on Flagler. (I cannot wait to see the gridlock when Bayside, the Miami Heat and the opera all have functions on the same night.) Add to this the “affordable housing crisis” that looms like a black cloud over this region, an understaffed and underpaid police force, backroom, under-the-table deals (the “fire-fee debacle” and these are just the ones we know of) and the list goes on and on, which brings us back to the sidewalks. If you can’t get the smallest of things done correctly, HOW are we to expect these hucksters to deliver on the big issues? A 3-year-old farting around on Sim City could do a better job.

And now they come at us with another multi-million dollar construction project, the Miami Art Museum, and are in negotiations to approve a stadium for the Marlins? I wonder whose uncle, brother, sister, cousin stands to profit from this?

Sincerely,

Mark Scott
Bay Harbor Islands

***

Great Ayn Rand’s Ghost! Politicians In Charge of Cheap Lodging for Artists?

A few years ago, Mayor David Dermer, Nancy Liebman and the rest of the city government, from the city manager to the police decided to sweep artists, homeless persons and all the beggars, etc. from Lincoln Road. Some shopkeepers, café owners, etc. complained of moochers. Miami Beach’s welcome loss was Wynwood’s, Overtown’s, the Design District’s and the city of Miami’s humble beginnings of their current artistic renaissance of those so-called “less expensive” regions.

In the meantime, taxes on Miami Beach, having nearly quadrupled, are driving the middle class out of town. Mayor Dermer, former commissioner Liebman, et. al., in their creation of a polarity of cultures — the thumb-and-bedroll and the five-car-garaged mansioners who will no doubt be grateful for City Hall’s patronage — have decided to build a low-income housing area for artists, musicians and other creators.

Hey! City of Miami Beach Leaders! Patronize the arts — don’t patronize the artists!

This idea obviously presupposes that creative people will have to prove their need and qualifications to be given special treatment, and that a government agency (which will have to be created to process the paperwork and govern the handout of special privileges) might actually have to be responsible and competent enough to “weed out” the poseurs from the potentially profitable working prophets.

I question whether any agency might have the faith and foresight necessary to stand behind their champions, as, say the Doge of Florence supported Leonardo over the years, given the master’s reputed plethora of passions on the palette of his palate, to cull for the greater good of mankind the gems from the jazz — or Van Gogh’s brother, who had to handle moody Vincent to get him out of hock, time after tedious time?

Can such nurturing be expected from elect-able American politicians, given these unchanging times of fundamental bible-trashers? And if not, then can one expect any “product” other than mediocrity and hype-not-hip-ocrisy? Can a renaissance be legislated from the top-down, as note the failure of big money poured into the Mars music stores fiasco? Did someone ever build a “field of dreams” or an ark — and find that nobody came? (Thanks to Bill Garten for that line.)

One final observation, if you will. I wonder about the sincerity of anyone having been responsible for the banning of artists (and the others, in one ham-fisted act of power) who in their fledgling attempts at “Capitalism 101” somehow threatened with their existence the established capitalo-socialists in their fiefdom on Lincoln Road. If the real artists and artisans from the third world — the Bengalis, the Bangladeshis, the Afghanis, the Pakistanis — those who create the fine “Persian” rugs and various clothing — or those workers who assemble goods in Mexico, Guatemala, South Korea, China and elsewhere — some chained to their machines in sweatshops, some burned-to-afterlife inside locked factories (and none dare call it slavery!) — if such people showed their now-faceless faces and tried to individually sell their creations on that golden street of Lincoln Road, just how justly would they be received?

Ayn Rand, champion in her own right of individualism and capitalism, wrote in The Romantic Manifesto, “Art is the technology of the soul.” Would any would-be creator entrust such a priceless rarity to politicians, especially local politicians whose crude and clumsy “handiwork” they have seen writ large all too clearly before?

I think that Ayn Rand was wrong about capitalism, but right about individuality. I would go one step further and claim that art and artists survive or fail, and will continue to do so, despite and in spite of government’s greatest or most humble efforts to either promote or to prevent them, champion or censor them.

David Melvin Thornburgh
Miami Beach

***

Campaign Contributions: The Root of All Evil in Public Government

Increasingly, the issues that should concern us are not the specter of terrorism, the economy, global warming, national health care, social security, or sex scandals among the stories hyped by the media. Rather, our primary concern should focus on dysfunctional governance and the absence of meaningful, and ethical, representation by many of the public officials we elected.

It should be obvious that the lack of truly representative governance is at the root of the many problems that are affecting each state, each region, and this nation. The self-serving arrogance and indifference to the majority of the electorate by much of the local and regional leadership in this nation is just one part in the ongoing decline of legitimate representative democracy.

Political power has increasingly shifted to a well-funded minority of large corporate vested interests and dogmatic ideologues that regularly dictate governmental policies and processes with detrimental effects on our lives and wellbeing. This self-serving corporate plutocracy has been undermining our rights and privileges for far too long. As part of this process legitimate democracy has become an illusion.

We are not being properly represented and the legitimate needs and desires of the majority of the American people are certainly not being met. The institutionalized corruption and continuous decline of representative democracy is clearly due to the continuous need of politicians to obtain campaign funds.

This corruption of the democratic system is exacerbated by the entrenched oligarchy of large corporate interests that supplies the bulk of campaign funding to the politicians who provide them with the services they demand. With this corruption come the attempts by many of those in power to reduce –if not halt — the natural expansion our civil liberties, our collective rights and our individual responsibilities.

The most effective way of reducing and ultimately ending this endemic corruption of government by the well paid representatives of large selfish corporate interests is by eliminating all the private campaign contributions that corrupt elected officials and distract them from providing their constituents with the services they demand. This should also help us from being diverted from considering substantive policy issues by the highly emotional matters promoted during elections.

Initially, our aim should be establishing an effective system of non-partisan voluntary public funding of candidates for national, state, and local public office. We should also gradually empower the public through an incrementally progressive system of continuous national citizen based initiatives and referenda on all the substantive public policy issues that affect our lives and the lives of all future generations.

Representative governance must be administered by ethical career professionals selected by a fully informed public electorate on the objective basis of the candidate’s legislative and administrative knowledge, skills, abilities, and desire to serve the public. In order to administer our government effectively all public servants must be obligated to continually provide for the legitimate rights, needs and services of the majority while preventing abuses to the rights of minorities.

All legislators and public administrators should be required to periodically take comprehensive written and oral examinations that demonstrate their qualifications, competence and continued understanding of the public’s evolving needs and desires. The results of such examinations should be the basis of critical and objective examination by the public without the pervasive bias and superficiality of political advertising. Only then can the people of this nation make the fully informed value judgments necessary to insure meaningful representation by our public servants.

Empowered self-governance is clearly the most meaningful and fulfilling form of governance. Our ultimate goal should be a system of direct democracy with optimal and ethical self-regulation administered by career public servants dedicated to serving the public. Objective evaluations based on critical thinking skills must reflect our growing abilities to make the fully informed ethical judgments necessary for the increased controls we need to promote a political, social and economic environment that enhances our eternal desires for ever greater self-determination.

How many of us are willing to work toward those goals? 

Abraham Moses Genen
Aventura