Here we go again | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    I warned you about this several weeks ago - and now here it is.

    We've got to save the Turnage. We being the taxpayers. If you don't believe me, just check out the headline and accompanying article in the Friday (6/29) WDN. Didn't we do that just a few years ago?? It's even more important now than it was before. After all, we now have a lot more money invested in it. If we the taxpayers don't come to the rescue, all that investment will be wasted. It's too bad that none of the big time operators around here seem to have ever heard of "sunk cost" much less know what it is.

    According to Wikipedia, " In economics and business decision making, sunk costs are retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. The problem with ignoring sunk cost is that each time we are faced with the need for additional investment we are faced with what has been described as the "sunk cost dilemma".

    In a separate Wikipedia article Mr. Oliver F. Lehmann, mathematically described the dilemma using concepts from game theory and decision theory. He models the situation as a one player game (like jigsaw puzzles and Rubik's Cube) in which sequences of decisions, each of which by themselves seem good, in the end lead to overall disaster. He posits that each time a decision to proceed is made (ignoring sunk cost) the outcome will always be positive.

    Mr. Lehmann concludes that, "As decisions are only made considering open costs but not sunk costs, each single decision is computed to be beneficial. But in the end, the overall payoff of the project is negative. While the project progresses towards disaster, the decision not to go on with the project gets more and more unlikely. The project is like a train: once it has been put on a track, it is very difficult to change its direction."

    He has perfectly described not only what we seem to see happening with the Turnage but also what we have recently been forced to suffer through with the EDC and the C of 100 decision making process.

    The long and short of it is that when we ignore sunk costs, we do so at our own peril. Our County Commissioners (well, at least five of 'em - including one who should know better) need to figure this out. You would think that we could expect to a Conservative Republican (even a self described one) to know what it means, but, alas...

    What we have seen over the years is a Turnage operation that was rather reminiscent of the "Wynn View" fiasco in Belhaven a few years ago.

    Both started out as non-profits. Both garnered a lot of grants. We frequently hear that all this generosity has no effect on the locals because the grants come from the Feds or the State or almost anyplace other than the local economy. They cost us nothing. Really?? So where do you think that money comes from??

    Anyway, at some point in the life of the Turnage, there suddenly appeared a for profit corporation and a LLC partnership with whom the original non-profit corporation seemed to get rather "cozy". In the case of Wynn View, ownership of the project was handed over to the for-profit, which meant that the public no longer had any right to follow what they were doing as would be the case if the ownership had stayed with the not-for-profit corporation. Good for the folks running the program; not so good for the long suffering tax payers.

    In the case of the Turnage, according to their 2010 tax return, there are two organizations each of which has a working relationship with the not-for-profit Foundation; The Turnage Lessor LLC (a partnership), and the Turnage Manager LLC (a "C" corporation). Both of these organizations are privately held. The only information about them that is available for public review is what they choose to make available (which as near as I can tell isn't much). The purposes and justification for establishing those organizations is certainly something that needs to be closely scrutinized.

    And now we are about to be asked, if it hasn't already happened in a back room somewhere (or perhaps at the King Chicken eatery??) to ante up even more taxpayer money to keep the Turnage in business. A lot of details about both of those for-profit organizations need to be subjected to the sunlight. They need to be closely scrutinized before we even listen to their public solicitations to be bailed out (again).

    Strategically, this may not be the best time to be asking for taxpayer money to bail out this nostalgic dream of a favored few around here. If you read your tax bill and note the "value" at which your residence is being taxed you should know why. We are being taxed for a lot of "value" that may have existed at one time, but certainly no longer applies. It seems to me that if the folks really cared about the Turnage (as the WDN and others would have you believe), it would have been a financial success.

    It might be interesting to put that question on the upcoming ballot. (i.e. should the taxpayers bail out the Turnage Theater?? Yes or No??)

    D'ya think??