Ntelos Pavilion?

Fine, sell naming rights to the Charlottesville Pavilion to Ntelos, but unless they’re going to give me money, I’m not gonna call it that.  #

11 Responses to “Ntelos Pavilion?”

  • Yuck!

  • If we’re starting that sort of thing, why stop there? How about the Ragout Rotundra? The Mercedes Benz Monticello? The Chevrolet Charlottesville City Hall? Come on, let’s get corporate sponsorship for all of our publicly held buildings and parks!

    Actually, that would leave Monticello out of things, but there’s no reason why a private foundation can’t do it, too!

    Yuck is right. No wonder no one wrote anything down to circumvent FOIA. Very bad idea.

  • Throw the bums out!

  • When I first heard this I thought it might be called the Music Today Pavilion, somehow that made some sense ot me.

    What I really want to know was how was this put out to bid, did someone simple offer an amount or was this just a line item price tag that had always been out there.It’s a commerical performance venue so naming rights really don’t bother me as long as the price isn’t a giveaway.

    If done correctly coporate sponsorship means less tax dollars that you and I have to pay to support the pavilion. Or perhaps even make a bit of a profit.

  • Someone WANTS to have their name associated with this monstrosity??

  • I’ll still call it the Charlottesville Pavilion.

    What the heck is Willis Tower?

  • “let’s get corporate sponsorship for all of our publicly held buildings and parks!”

    While the City indeed owns the land that the pavilion is on, they leased it to Capshaw for 40 years, and he built the structure. While I’m guessing that lease allows them to approve or reasonably deny the pending name change, I don’t think the revenue involved will be going to the City but rather whatever Capshaw subsidiary manages the facility.

  • I kind of suspected the same thing. Coran Capshaw is the only one likely to benefit from this. Very interesting then that people in City Hall would be going out of their way to keep information about the discussions hidden from the public’s eye.

    I pointed out in a comment on Waldo’s recent FOIA posting that those requests were only good for getting existing documents. This sort of thing is exactly why that fact is significant.

    Important information is kept out of your reach all the time in this city. It may at times, like many other failing of our local government, be due to laziness and incompetence but it is often, as in this case, quite intentional. Why else would the mayor use the email address cvilledave@gmail.com for official business rather than one based on a city owned server if not to be able to keep information hidden when he chooses?

  • “If done correctly coporate sponsorship means less tax dollars that you and I have to pay to support the pavilion.” I can not think of any public-private partnership that has been done correctly.
    ” Or perhaps even make a bit of a profit.” Ntelos and Capshaw run privately owned business and should be making profits> How else can they re-invest in their ventures? I agree with all of the other posters (I think. I’m not going to re-read them again). I, too, wonder it this was put to bid or was Ntelso sponship was simply paid to Capshaw. Also will this Council approve a sign larger than others to display the Ntelos name. Worth watching. even though I have never wated to go that that ugly place. Now, that I have moved, I probably never will.

  • When they did this without outdoor venues in Boston, we just kept calling them by their old names. Great Woods will always be Great Woods and Harbor Lights will always be Harbor Lights to those old enough to remember the original names.

  • Whoever negotiated the deal on the original lease should have included a cut on the naming sponsorship. The City gave away a sweet deal, or perhaps just a good will gesture.

    Naming rights of music venues can command 100s of thousands of dollars each year. Even a fraction of that could be beneficial to the city coffers. Virginia Beach recently contracted 5% of sponsorship fees for the naming rights of its amphitheater.

    Virginia Beach: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2011/02/24/187956.htm
    Raleigh’s another example: http://music.mync.com/2010/05/city-of-raleigh-looking-for-opinions-on-amphitheatre-naming-rights/

    No doubt the city gave the public a wonderful venue, but on the face of it, the city also gave the developer a generous share. Lesson learned.

Comments are currently closed.