A marketing plan, he says “has a connotation” different from what Breitenfeld is saying. Moving events to the harbor, he says he could support.

As for parking, Bagby says, shuttling buses from a pickup point the way the Mattie Kelly Arts Foundation does for some events would work fine. It’s a good approach, he says, but not what the CRA committee should be thinking about: Their job “is to build the tent, not to decide on the events put on in the tent.”

Trammell: Could we say “review any marketing plans within the CRA. That’s just a matter of reviewing them and talking about them.” Adds a clarification that this is only if someone wants to bring the plans to the CRA–nobody is required to solicit the city’s approval for a private plan.

Seevers: That makes sense. The way it’s written now, it sounds like the committee is being directed to come up with its own plan.

Trammell: Makes a substitute motion to amend the plan to have the committee review any marketing plans brought before the committee and make recommendations to the board. Tom Weidenhamer seconds.

Bagby: He’ll support that, but warns that “every one of these (added objectives) bleeds off resources.” When organizations lose their focus “it’s a death by a thousand cuts, a thousand great ideas… I’ll support this, I just hope we’ll be careful about all the good ideas we pile on this … we won’t end up with anything we envision on the harbor if we’re not careful.”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.