Reggae: Past, Present and Future

Tanya,

With all due respect, you really should step down. Your reasons behind that position are not very convincing, while their (PP) reason and need for having it, makes perfect sense and it seems that if you really Truly wanted to secure what is best for the mateel you would have agreed to that, because that is the only way to insure the market confusion will go away. Maybe you really should consider stepping down if you don't see this clearly...this has gotten out of control and you don't seem to be able to steer it in a different course. Nothing you are doing seems to work....Can you handle this tanya???? the rest of the board???? Can you all handle this, maybe you all should step aside and let in some new perspective on the issues.....
 

Anon 1:48
There is no respect in your comments. Maybe there wouldn't have been any market place confusion if PP hadn't created a new festival on the same weekend. Do you have any suggestions for a solution besides telling everyone they should just quit?
 

her name is T-A "U" N-Y-A..........
 

While I do not call for Taunya's resignation. She is doing the bidding of the board, which is her job, I am deeply troubled by this communication.

The Center's bargaining position is unbeliveably weak and has been since the Superior Court declined relief. That coupled with the fact that every other clause of the settlement is agreeable to both parties, I find it very difficult to fathom how they could be prepared to risk their very existence on this point. They are taking millions of badly needed dollars off of the table for the sake of defending a name that will be of absolutely no value to anyone if they aren't willing to reach a compromise on this issue.

Please, for God sake, consider the course of this intransigence. The community needs the MCC and you are are jeopardizing its survival.

The Center is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. It has no meaningful means of raising funds. It is losing the good will of the very people able and inclined to help you. It is squandering countless thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours pursuing a legal case that so far has failed at every step, who's success is far from certain and who's victory would be pyrrhic at best.

And all for the sake of sharing billing with the name Reggae on the River.

Please take time to reflect on the decisions you have made and the course you are currently on and reconsider whether this is in your or your community's best interest.

Thank You
 

I agree with you that the legal case is far from certain and that the MCC's victory will likely by pyrrhic.

On the other hand, I think their case is strengthened by the fact that their festival was unable to go forward this year and that consequently, the monetary damages will likely be high if they win. Additionally, it would be wise to not read too much into the court's rulings thus far as they have merely established that money is enough for the "winner".
 

I am looking at last years' ROTR festival poster. I see it reads the Mateel and People Productions present. It has been that way for years.
Why can't ROTR be presented by the MCC, and a company called Reggae Rising? It would not read the reggae rising music festival presents the ROTR festival.It would read the MCC and Reggae Rising present. Simple and no one loses face. This all seems quite silly to me. How would listing co-presenters just the way it has been done in years past damage the intellectual rights so badly that it would devalue the festivals' name?
 

On the other hand, I think their case is strengthened

I agree that the dismissal of the requests had no bearing on the merits of their case.

But what is the judge or jury going to think when they see a letter from MCC's attorney stating that. despite the fact that there is no disagreement on the financial terms, there is no deal.

It seems to me that the value of the festival was pretty well set at 200,000 per over nine years.

And it seems like the MCC made the decision that there would be no festival.

God, that whole thing with it failing over the name is making me nuts.
 

The owner of this blog is one sided, unfair, and causing problems in the community. You know it!
Be fair, we all know who you are.
 

I applaud you Bob on maintaining integrity on your site irregardless of the VERY few in this community that insist on bringing negativity to this controversy. As a 30 year community member I am well aware of the handful of people and their personal agendas that keeping things stirred up and whom the MCC seems to be listening to instead of majority of the community who want to see this resolved.
 

to anon 8:01,

First. I'm a bit surprised when you say, "we all know who you are." Is that some sort of veiled threat? I've made no secret about who I am. It's clearly stated in the first post on this blog. My name is Bob Doran. I live in Arcata. I make my living writing for the North Coast Journal. Who are you?

Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm one sided. Which side am I on?

I set up this blog after writing a long piece for the Journal about the conflict swirling around Reggae. I did my best to be even-handed and well balanced. Never-the-less I was accused of bias (and slander and libel) because of it. You might want to revisit it, there's a link marked Clash Over Reggae in the upper left corner of this blog. While a lot has happened since then, you'll find that things have not changed much since November.

At the beginning of this year I began getting inundated with information about what was going on with the festival and established this space to provide a source, mostly for the SoHum community, who are far more interested in this topic than others, in fact some seem obsessed with it.

For the most part I've posted press releases and letters that were sent to me by someone on one side or another. I've made an effort to steer clear of rumors and unattributed allegations. I've had a constant barrage of vile, negative comments, insults aimed at both sides -- I chose not to publish them, as is explained repeatedly below, mainly because I feel that that sort of thing has been bad for SoHum in general. Is that what you mean when you say this blog is "causing problems in the community"? Or is it the general fact that this blog presents too much information? What's the problem?

Or, to put it another way, in the immortal words of 'Joliet' Jake Blues, "What did I say to piss you off this time, bay-bee?"
 

I suspect the complainer above feels unfairly censored. PP's communicators who in earlier months specialized in slander, as a cursory glance at Eric's archives will confirm, now share a reasoned, world-weary-wisdom tone that feels more deceitful than ever to people who have watched this privatization campaign up close and personal.

Surely part of the problem is that inflamed feelings are no longer mutual, so the inflamed side is disproportionately suppressed on your polite site. I see why this feels unfair. I'm willing to blame its tasteful architecture, so to speak, rather than its architect--but I gave up on Reggae years ago, as it was already degenerating into what is now recognized even by the Planning Commission.

It's a horrible shame. I hope I have expressed my feelings and judgements nicely enough that this can be published.

You weren't being threatened, Bob. Calls for fairness are at the heart of SoHum's cries as Reggae dies.
 

"God, that whole thing with it failing over the name is making me nuts."

It could be that the Mateel's lawyer recommended they hold firm on the name for some legal reasons associated with the court case. I don't know one way or the other. I'm just speculating that it's possible that the board merely followed their legal advise and weren't just being stubborn.
 

This clears up some things...

Though I have attended ROTR many, many times, I am an 'outsider' when it comes to the runnings there. I have to agree with you that Mateel has to assume some 'responsibility' for the situation they currently find themselves in. But, contrary to your post, IMO Mateel's faults stem far more from their letting Carol "run the show" for so many years rather than anything they have done since the dispute with PP began about a year ago.

As I understand it, Carol worked for many years under Mateel, and helped to grow it into the massive festival it has become. When she decided to form People Productions, I suspect the folks at Mateel presumed it would be more of the same - Carol working to produce a festival that would benefit the Mateel. Yes, PP is a for-profit company, but other than that, things would basically remain the same.

You are correct that Tom Dimmick has a lot to lose, but IMO it has absolutely nothing to do with 'who runs the festival'. God made insurance to cover that. From what I have seen, when it comes to leasing land to hold a festival on, the landowners tend to be far LESS concerned with who is running the show, and far MORE concerned with: 1) getting their payment up front; and 2) making sure there is adequate INSURANCE to cover any liabilities that such an event brings. Instea, Tom's "real" concerns should be regarding his discussions with Carol Bruno in advance of signing his lease with Mateel a few years ago. Intentional Interference with Contractual Advantage is a serious cause of action in california, and if can be established that either Carol convinced Tom to breach his agreement with Mateel or the two of them "cooked-up" the "must use PP to produce ROTR" provision apparently contained in the Dimmick-Mateel lease, then they can both be held liable for the substantial damages that Mateel has suffered.

As I understand the attempted resolution negotiations, the parties are much, much further apart than just the name of the festival. Mateel is/was looking to license their event for an 8-9 year period of time in exchange for an annual payment. The festival would remain ROTR, and would continue to be Mateel's. Tom, on the other hand, was offering to pay a fee for 8-9 years. Mateel's initial offers provided that, after this 8-9 year period, the license for the name would revert back to Mateel. Tom wanted the name to become his. So essentially, one side was looking to lease the name while the other side was looking to aquire all rights. BIG DIFFERENCE. Had my landlord agreed to allow me to aquire all right, title and interest in my apartment after 8-9 years of payments, I would have owend it free and clears many years ago, but I am still paying rent.

So what's in a name, and how could Mateel hold out over just that? The answer to that one is easy. IF Mateel agreed to allow the event to be called Reggae Rising, then after the 8-9 years is up, Tom and Carol would just continue RR without paying ANY fees to Mateel because by that time the name RR will probably mean MORE than ROTR currently does.

It seems to me that if Carol was dissatisfied with the board of Mateel, she could and should have taken action to have the board members replaced. On the other hand, if Carol was just fed up with dealing with the Mateel and wanted to produce her own event, she could have chosen any one of 51 other weeks in the year to put on that event.

As I understand it, 100% of all profits from ROTR go to support Mateel and other non-profits. As I further understand it, 100% of the profits from RR will go to People Productions and other "FOR-PROFIT" companies and individuals. I suspect that any comments casting PP as republicans stem from this difference....

Wow !
 

lol at you being an outsider who happens to know more about whats going on than the people that live there. and check your info too, cus they said they'd bill it as reggae on the river, just put on by 'the mateel community center and reggae rising' instead of 'the mateel community center and people productions' like it had been in the past.

*yawn*
 

Is the reason, you haven't posted anything in a couple days, the fact that you are getting threated with being sued by Dimmick, PP?
 

In a word, no. Why would they want to sue me? I haven't been posting anything because there's nothing new to report.