Matt, Kathy and Walker conspired to mislead the public with farcical, unattainable math;
330 spaces x $18 = $5,940
$5,940 x 150 = $891,000
Which matches within $20,000 of what was presented to the public
and voted on by City Council;
$10 million + 2.1 + $1.079 million = $13,179,000 million from VIP parking,
which is just about $13,195,710. From Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM;
330 x 18 = $5,940
$5,940 x 150 = $891,000 per year, from 330 VIP parking spots at $18 a piece
sold out at every event for 150 events
$13,195,710 / $891,000 = 14.81 years of 330 VIP spots
sold out at every event for 150 events every year
for almost 15 strait years
The paid consultant said the center could host about 149 events per year after 3 years, some of which obviously couldn't get sold out VIP parking money;
The STPAC is not going to sell 330 VIP parking spots at every event
31 events don't look like they can charge $18 for VIP parking
149 - 31 = 118
66 annually projected performances are expected to bring in less than 2,000 patrons, which are not going to sell 330 VIP parking spaces for $18 a piece
There are 12 expected student plays or concerts, which will likely have no VIP spaces sold for.
The 11 recitals won't sell 330 VIP spaces
CTG's Wizard of Oz etc... can't/won't be able sell 330 VIP parking
So how much is the parking going to cost,
relative to taking a Uber/Lyft, or parking for free?
There were 488 free on street parking spots within 1,200 feet of the site,
not counting the VF and the Marriott parking across the street,
and another couple thousand in two more parking decks on the way;
The Bellemeade Deck across the street has 1,276 spaces
DPAC charges $5 per car in a similarly proximate deck.
The public presentation didn't include how much the parking would cost at $18 per spot, and certainly didn't include the projected 2019 rate and potential more VIP parking
on top of the 330 spaces currently planned;
As of November 14, 2017, only $20 million of the $40 plus million in private donations have actually been "raised", not counting expected interest payments on the loan CFGG took out to make up the difference;
Manning and Walker Sanders, the president of the Community Foundation,
also announced that they had met their goal
of raising $38.5 million from private donors.
Dawn DeCwikiel-Kane
Financially Illiterate News and Record reporter who lied to her readers
Manning and Walker among others purposefully misled our community
and have conspired against Greensboro's taxpayers for personal profit
Costs for the entire project will be covered by private donations,
hotel and motel tax revenues, ticket fees and parking revenues
— not taxpayer money, [Matt] Brown said.
Dawn DeCwikiel-Kane
If taxpayer money becomes involved,
Matt Brown should be removed from his position
.
.
Performing Arts Center: "[Notable]...Task Force Members";
GPAC Development / Marketing Task Force; Kathy Manning, co-chair
GPAC Economic Impact / Feasibility Task Force; Randall Kaplan and Roy Carroll
GPAC Development / Marketing Task Force; George House, one of Randall's partners
.
.
Two reasons among many that a GPAC with 3,000 seats probably won't work as well as DPAC with 2,700 seats
City Council voted to for this project knowing this information
or should have, and/or willfully ignored data,
violating their fiduciary duties to Greensboro's taxpayers,
and should be removed from office
"§ 14-230. Willfully failing to discharge duties.
(a) If any clerk of any court of record, sheriff, magistrate, school board member, county commissioner, county surveyor, coroner, treasurer, or official of any of the State institutions, or of any county, city or town, shall willfully omit, neglect or refuse to discharge any of the duties of his office, for default whereof it is not elsewhere provided that he shall be indicted, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. If it shall be proved that such officer, after his qualification, willfully and corruptly omitted, neglected or refused to discharge any of the duties of his office, or willfully and corruptly violated his oath of office according to the true intent and meaning thereof, such officer shall be guilty of misbehavior in office, and shall be punished by removal therefrom under the sentence of the court as a part of the punishment for the offense."
.
.
"§ 14-209. Punishment for perjury.
If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in any suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any of the courts of the State, or in any deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in any oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, every person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon."
.
.
"§ 14-210. Subornation of perjury.
If any person shall, by any means, procure another person to commit such willful and corrupt perjury as is mentioned in G.S. 14-209, the person so offending shall be punished as a Class I felon."
.
.
2005 North Carolina Code - General Statutes § 97-88.2. Penalty for fraud.
§ 97‑88.2. Penalty for fraud.
(a) Any person who willfully makes a false statement or representation of a material fact for the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit or payment, or assisting another to obtain or deny any benefit or payment under this Article, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if the amount at issue is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000). Violation of this section is a Class H felony if the amount at issue is one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more. The court may order restitution.
(a1) When a person is convicted under subsection (a) of this section, the Commission may enter such orders as necessary to ensure that the person convicted does not benefit from the unlawful conduct.
.
.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1. Methods of competition, acts and practices regulated; legislative policy
(a) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.
...North Carolina enacted the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”) to benefit consumers, but “its protections extend to businesses in appropriate situations.”[3] Creating a private cause of action for consumers was the Act’s primary purpose.[4] Also, the statute was enacted “to provide a civil means to maintain ethical standards of dealings between persons engaged in business and the consuming public” within North Carolina because “other legal remedies were inadequate or ineffective.”[5] It applies to dealings between buyers and sellers at all levels of commerce.[6]
Under the North Carolina statute, both individuals, through a private cause of action, and the State, through the Attorney General, can raise a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.[11] The Attorney General is responsible for investigating all corporations or persons in North Carolina doing business in violation of the law.[12] Persons or corporations that violate any of the provisions of Chapter 75 may be subject to criminal sanctions in prosecutions brought by the state Attorney General, remedies through civil actions brought and prosecuted by the Attorney General, damages in private causes of action by injured persons, or any permissible combination.[13]
Prima Facie Case
Three-Part Test
A claim under this statute requires proof of three elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; (3) which proximately caused the injury to the claimant.[15] [16] A court will first determine if the act or practice was “in or affecting commerce” before determining if the act or practice was unfair or deceptive.[17]
Unfair and Deceptive Definition
A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy or when the act or practice is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.”[18] A party is guilty of an unfair act or practice when it engages in conduct which amounts to an inequitable assertion of its power or position.[19] [20] For an act or practice to be deceptive it must have “the capacity or tendency to deceive” but proof of actual deception is not required.[21] [22]
Deliberate acts of deceit or bad faith do not have to be shown, rather, the claimant must demonstrate that the act or practice possessed the tendency and capacity to mislead or created the likelihood of deception.[23] Additionally, it is not required that the claimant actually relies on the deception in order to prevail; actual reliance is not a factor to be considered.[24]
Unfairness is a broader concept than, and includes the concept of, deceptiveness.[28] However, only one—either unfairness or deceptiveness—is required to bring the act or practice within the statute.[29] There is no requirement that the act or practice be both unfair and deceptive.[30]
A plaintiff can prove that an act was “in or affecting commerce” by demonstrating that the parties were “engaged in an activity involving an exchange of some type in which a participant could be characterized as a seller.”[38] However, the activity need only to “surround or affect a sale,” it does not need to meet a stricter standard of “inducing a sale.”[39]
In its broadest sense, commerce includes “intercourse for the purposes of trade in any form.”[40]
Causal Requirement
A claimant must prove that a defendant’s unfair or deceptive acts were the cause of the injuries the claimant incurred. Proof of actual injuries can include: loss of the use of specific and unique property, the loss of any appreciated value of property, and other elements of damage shown by plaintiff’s evidence.[44] Reliance on the defendant’s unfair or deceptive act is not necessary to show that the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
The Burden Shifting Scheme
North Carolina’s UDTPA created a statutory burden-shifting scheme. At the outset, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof,[47] and must provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that he has suffered actual injury as a result of the defendant’s actions.[48] Then the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions “were in or affecting commerce,” and that they constituted an unfair or deceptive practice. Once a plaintiff has established his prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that he is exempt from the UDTPA.[49]
Fraud is sufficient evidence of an unfair or deceptive act, including fraud in the inducement;[81] [82] the use of coercive tactics is also covered by the statute;[83] negligent misrepresentation, including failure to disclose that amounts to misrepresentation;[84] and, a broken promise can also qualify if the promisor had no intent to perform when he made the promise, which amounts to promissory fraud.[85]
Intentionally and Knowingly Making False Statements: Torrance v. AS&L Motors, Ltd., 119 N.C. App. 552, 459 S.E.2d 67 (1995).
A used car salesman told potential buyers a specific car had not been involved in an accident when asked by the buyers, even though the seller knew that statement was false. The buyer then relied on the statement that the car had never been in an accident and purchased the car. Because the car salesman knowingly lied to the buyers about the car’s accident history, the act was unfair or deceptive under the statute.
Failure to Inspect: Huff v. Autos Unlimited, Inc., 124 N.C. App. 410, 477 S.E.2d 86 (1996).
A used car salesman failed to conduct a simple visual inspection of a car that he knew had been in an accident. Even without the visual inspection, and with the knowledge that the car had been wrecked, the salesman sold the car with assurances of its reliability, subjecting him to liability for an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
.
.
FRAUD: The Supreme Court has concluded that there are two types of fraud in a civil context: Actual and Constructive. The Court has determined that Active Fraud is the false representation of a material fact or, in the alternative, the concealment of a material fact. Moreover, the misrepresented material fact must be known to be false or made recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth or falsity. A fact is considered “material” if, had it been known to the party, it would have influenced that party’s decision in making the contract at all. Constructive Fraud, on the other hand, is based on the relationship between the parties. It requires the existence of a relation of trust and confidence, in which the bad actor is alleged to have taken advantage of his position of trust, resulting in injury to the harmed party.
