I completely agree with the last post. Everyone needs to be rethinking perhaps how much of their funds should be spent. It is necessarily admitting defeat if you need to scale down a previously slated project in order to keep your organization safe financially.

This is particularly relevant to me because my university is going through this (almost) exact situation right now. I am a music and arts management major, and had heard that my university was planning on building a brand new performing arts center since I was in high school. Since our current music building was built in the 1930's, it is a much needed change. There were plans to have a ground breaking ceremony this fall, and was indefinitely postponed due to the economic crisis.

As frustrated as I was at first, I now realize that that was the fiscally the best option. Like Margot said, we got ourselves into the situation we are in because we spent money we didn't have, and the arts are no exception. As much as non-profits seem to be separate from "regular" businesses, in this sense they are not--you can't escape or make exceptions to the economy.

Our country got itself into the current economic mess due largely to the habit of americans spending beyond their means. The econimic stability of the 90's and the relative calm after 9/11 lulled everyone into this sense of security, who cares if I'm just paying the minimum on my credit card this month? Times are good right? Now everyone who had that here and now attitude is being forced to face a bleak future because of their past decisions. Not only individuals are coming to terms with past money management, every day a new company that employs a large part of the population is requesting a bailout. As members of the non profit community we need to set an example of how to smartly manage our funds. It is a good thing to look into the future and have large goals and plans, but contingency plans and re-evaluations of budgets are necessary for a successful organization to take into account as well.

Here's a minority opinion, admittedly formed with no insight into Orlando's situation beyond the newslink included in Andrew's post:

I find the Orlando decision prudent for several reasons:

1. As all the correspondents to date seem to agree, NOBODY KNOWS what The New Reality will look like. It may be that a PAC will still be a good idea. If so, why declare the sunk funds wasted prematurely? Be patient and see what happens.

2. There has been no decision to spend half a billion dollars on anything, merely to authorize the architects to complete plans that are already in process. The prevailing opinion in the conversation seems to be that half a billion should be spent on other Orlando projects, but THAT MONEY DOESN'T EXIST. That's why the PAC project is stalled.

3. Completed construction plans will, indeed, allow a more accurate estimate of costs to be developed: always a good idea when faced with a go/no-go decision.

4. The funds to finish the plans won't come from donations from PAC supporters: they will come from the City payment for the land that completes the proposed site. So, if the ultimate decision is no-go/no PAC, gifts can be returned to the donors. Sounds like good faith to me.

5. Presumably, the proposed PAC parcel is a prime, developable site. It therefore makes good sense for it all to be in the hands of the City in the event that the site has to be "repurposed." So the land deal which provides the funds to finish the architectural plans makes good sense all around.

There's certainly reason to ask whether three massive public facility projects were a good idea for Orlando in the first place. However, given the current situation, it seems to me that the decision you question, Andrew, was extraordinarily well thought-out. It keeps all options open while waiting for a fog-bound future to come clear.

I've been a resident of Orlando for 8 years. I can remember the earliest talks regarding these venues and when the initial designs went public. The performing arts venue is one of three venues that are being either refurbished and/or constructed. www.projecthometown.com
Those include: 1)Dr. Phillips Performing Arts Center(new construction), 2) Events Center(new construction replacing an already existing arena/events center that isn't even 20 years old.), 3)Citrus Bowl: a run-down open air sports stadium mainly used for college football or bmx biking shows.
Currently, construction is already underway on the new Events Center. I don't understand why those plans are already going through. Why is the money there to move forward on that and not on the performing arts center? As far as the Citrus Bowl, personally, I think it should be demolished. It is an eyesore on the skyline of this city.

You should be asking these questions about this 3rd basketball arena being built.

Charette's are nice, but never seem to go anywhere because egos and not good ideas usually win out.

I think Ellen might be onto something: redirect the millions to expand the monorail, and then see what happens...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Monorail_System

Yeah, and Springfield built the monorail and look what happened. I think Andrew is right. This isn't a downturn or a temporary state of affairs. As one local community foundation leader put it, this is a "permanent reset." What would be the most tragic is if Orlando missed an opportunity to make a real difference in their arts community by trying to wait out the storm.

Maybe a performing arts center is more a Shelbyville idea.

But what if the people in Shelbyville think we're hicks?