 |
| Embassy Theatre in 2010 |
That's what Scott Ott told an Allentown arts group when he ran for County Executive two years ago. He takes credit for rescuing and restoring that theatre in his current Commissioner race, too.
Ott has bounced around his entire life. He grew up in Bucks County, graduating from Palisades High School in 1979. From there is was on to Penn State, where he was awarded a Bachelor's degree in journalism and found himself a job in central Pa. as a reporter. That's where he met his first wife, a Lewistown disc jockey.
Ott would eventually move on to Kansas City with his second wife sometime in the 1990's, but before that, he and his then disc jockey wife did lead an effort to save Embassy Theatre.
Was Ott as closely invloved as he claims? Did he really restore this central Pennsylvania landmark? Here's what Paul Fagley, President of Friends of the Embassy Theatre, remembers about Ott:
It is true that Scott Ott, then going by the name Scott Barron-Ott, was one of a small group of local citizens who rescued the Embassy Theatre from the wrecker's ball. He was the visible "front man" for the group that raised enough support to purchase it at auction. This was in the late spring and summer of 1991. The theatre was auctioned in July of that year. The following year, the group incorporated as a 501c3, and Scott was the prime signatory of the application, as President of the Board. When I came on the board in the fall of 1992, Scott was already gone from the group, and things were falling apart. The original purchase deal with the local banks was that, although they had enough to purchase the theatre, they were given a 2-year demand mortgage of $35,000 to tie the group over (to pay the bills, so to speak) while it incorporated and raised funds to get the project moving. At the end of two years, the mortgage was to be paid off. However, there was no followup to the original appeal, and no significant funds had been raised. The new roof that was supposed to have been put on the building was only half completed, with only tarpaper on the other half, which caused more interior damage. When I took over as President in August of 1993, the ship was literally sinking. After rebuilding the board, and finishing the roof, it took a few years for the board to stabilize the finances of the project just to keep it afloat, then working with various agencies to do the necessary work to bring it back. We are now poised to begin the major work. The mortgage is still there, 20 years later, although we have paid it down to $25,000.
"Singlehandedly" I would question as a bit of "puffing," as it was a group effort, though he was the most visible member of the group. "Spearhead" might be a more descriptive term. As to forming a 501c3, that basically involves completing an application to the IRS.
Whether or not this qualifies him for the office of county commissioner, I will leave that to you and the voters.
Was Ott as closely invloved as he claims? Did he really restore this central Pennsylvania landmark? Here's what Paul Fagley, President of Friends of the Embassy Theatre, remembers about Ott:
It is true that Scott Ott, then going by the name Scott Barron-Ott, was one of a small group of local citizens who rescued the Embassy Theatre from the wrecker's ball. He was the visible "front man" for the group that raised enough support to purchase it at auction. This was in the late spring and summer of 1991. The theatre was auctioned in July of that year. The following year, the group incorporated as a 501c3, and Scott was the prime signatory of the application, as President of the Board. When I came on the board in the fall of 1992, Scott was already gone from the group, and things were falling apart. The original purchase deal with the local banks was that, although they had enough to purchase the theatre, they were given a 2-year demand mortgage of $35,000 to tie the group over (to pay the bills, so to speak) while it incorporated and raised funds to get the project moving. At the end of two years, the mortgage was to be paid off. However, there was no followup to the original appeal, and no significant funds had been raised. The new roof that was supposed to have been put on the building was only half completed, with only tarpaper on the other half, which caused more interior damage. When I took over as President in August of 1993, the ship was literally sinking. After rebuilding the board, and finishing the roof, it took a few years for the board to stabilize the finances of the project just to keep it afloat, then working with various agencies to do the necessary work to bring it back. We are now poised to begin the major work. The mortgage is still there, 20 years later, although we have paid it down to $25,000.
"Singlehandedly" I would question as a bit of "puffing," as it was a group effort, though he was the most visible member of the group. "Spearhead" might be a more descriptive term. As to forming a 501c3, that basically involves completing an application to the IRS.
Whether or not this qualifies him for the office of county commissioner, I will leave that to you and the voters.
33 comments:
OK. Let me think. OK. I've decided.
He's still a better choice for commissioner than any other candidate.
These are serious charges. Next, Bernie will expose that Scott jaywalked once.
This is the promise of hard hitting community activism via blogging -delivered.
Ott's actual record is somewhat scant, and Embassy Theatre is part of it. It is something he bragged about and claimed to have restored. It appears that his claim is inaccurate.
Anyone know Ott's attendance and voting records from his current term on Republican State Committee?
People have been saying he rarely attends these meetings that we elected him to attend. Anyone on here have this information?
Bernie
Where in the two sources that you provide does it say Ott singlehandedly saved the theatre. It appears to say he started the group that did but I dont see where he takes sole credit????
From My Lehigh County PAC:
"Scott’s community involvement includes starting a nonprofit organization to rescue and restore an historic theatre ... ."
It appears that he takes credit for both rescuing and restoring the facility. It also appears, from the current President at that Theatre, that the facility has not been restored and that when Scott left there for the Mid West, the place was in shambles and did not even have a roof. That's not restoring the place. It was also in heavy debt because $30,000 was borrowed and it appears nothing was paid back.
Bernie –
The links you provide to Ott’s claims say this:
“Scott’s community involvement includes starting a nonprofit organization to rescue and restore a historic theater…”, and “As someone who started a non-profit that saved the historic Embassy Theatre in Lewistown…”
Those claims are corroborated in your article, and neither mentions any claim that Ott did it “singlehandedly”.
Paul Fagley himself notes that Ott was one of the apparent few who recognized the importance of the theater and the need to save it. Fagley notes Ott was the visible “front man” for the group that raised the money to purchase the theater at auction. Fagley also says Ott was part of the group that started (not an easy or quick process, by the way) the non profit that apparently ultimately restored the theater and that Ott also served as the Board President for the non profit.
How any of that can be twisted as something negative is beyond me, but such is the nature of what politics has turned into. Such action should be lauded, as far too many people in far too many communities are willing to sit back and do nothing when action is needed.
Ott apparently answered the call then, just as he did when stood up and spoke out with many others against Lehigh County’s unnecessary tax hike this past October. Not only did was he willing to speak out against the tax hike, he was willing to enter the race for Lehigh County commissioner to do something about it.
As you say, we’ll let the voters decide in November. But I think Lehigh County taxpayers want to elect representatives who are willing to fight for them. I know I do.
Bernie, The short answer is that it is your own interpretation based not on the facts but rather on your own personal dislike of Ott. Your self deprecation as a bottom feeder is becoming reality rather than satire. Sad for you. Keep it up and whatever chops you have for good political coverage will give way to the same reputation as Geeting and Casey.
I don't write to please you. I write to tell the truth as I see it. The truth, as I see it, is that Ott has embellished his involvement in that theatre. He is taking credit for rescuing and restoring it. Although he is part of a group that did rescue it, he did not restore the facility, and left it in serious debt and with work undone. Those are the facts.
Now this guy, who apparently could not manage a $30,000 loan, wants to work on a $400 million budget.
I'm going to clarify some things here. In 1992 Ott was a reporter in Lewiston. within six months of initiating the Embassy Theater campaign, he divorced, moved to Kansas City Mo area, enrolled in the Midwest Theological seminary, and took a job as a public relations guy for the North Kansas City School district. (Where he spent six years explaining why everyone should vote FOR tax increases)
As Bernie points out, Mr Ott has claimed in campaign paraphernalia that he successfully (AND I STRESS HIS OWN WORD, SUCCESSFULLY)ran a non-profit. He also made that claim during his County Executive campaign.
There are many people in Lewiston who would disagree with that. He left the Theater in sorry shape. All you have to do is get in the car, go to Lewiston and start asking around. Or you can use email and facebook, that works as well.
The bigger question is, what events transpired that inspired him to RUN away. SO FAR AWAY?
His first wife is expectedly reluctant to discuss the circumstances, and she's not running for office, so that is her right. Mr Ott, however, is asking for people to entrust him with a measure of responsibility in overseeing and administering a $400 million County budget.
We need some assurances that he has a concept of what he needs to do.
Writing books mocking a President or making vacuous, empty headed internet faux news programs doesn't do it either.
What is the difference between observing that President Obama is in over his head and pondering that Scott (If elected) would be in over his?
Scott has made claims that can be scrutinized for accuracy. When they are found wanting, he owes us an explanation.
If he doesn't like the scrutiny, he should get out of the race.
Chris is absolutely right on this one. I did not make Embassy Theatre an issue. Ott did. He is certainly trying to create the impression that he saved it and turned it around. I have referenced two sources, but there are more.
The reality is something different. He certainly can take credit for helping save the theatre. No question. But he has no right to claim that he restored it or that the nonprofit he started accomplished that mission.
When he left, the place was $35,000 in debt (I had earlier stated $30,000). Ott encumbered the property at the time it was "saved," and that loan had to be paid off in two years. The loan was not paid, and a new roof was only half completed. Then Ott bolted, leaving the Embassy Theatre high and dry.
These are all facts, and they come directly from the current president, who had to clean up the mess.
I'm not saying that this is a reason to reject Ott as a candidate, but it is something to consider.
Chris Casey said:
"If he doesn't like the scrutiny, he should get out of the race."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris -
I would say that he's getting more scrutiny from you than any commissioner candidate has ever gotten.
His "sin" appears to be that he saw a need in the community to rescue a historic theater, helped create a non-profit to work on restoring the theater, and served for a period of time as the Board President. And he did all this as an unpaid volunteer until he moved elsewhere because of personal reasons.
I find the need to try to smear a person for volunteering to do what they thought is good for their community to be more than a bit over the top. Such attacks are why so many good people don't volunteer in their communities, or get involved with politics.
I get your point that the theater's restoration is ongoing and isn't complete. However, I would argue that the theater is in a heck of a lot better shape than if it had been torn down (as it apparently would have been without Ott's - and others - involvement). I think reasonable people realize that.
On a local note, I wish someone had done something similar with the grand Colonial Theater in Allentown, before it fell beyond repair and to the wrecking ball.
I find it interesting that there is such a high level of scrutiny into something that Ott did almost 20 years ago. That attempts were made to contact his ex-wife (again, apparently from 20 years ago) comes off as a bit creepy for a county commissioner race.
However, I'm sure it is all being done for unbiased purposes and in the interest of protecting the taxpayers of Lehigh County. I look forward to similar zeal and reporting into the backgrounds of the four Democrat candidates for County Commissioner.
"I find it interesting that there is such a high level of scrutiny into something that Ott did almost 20 years ago."
Why? Ott himself made this an issue in both the Exec race and now. He has no record as an elected official, so this is where we have to look. I think it is entirely fair and appropriate.
"I find the need to try to smear a person for volunteering to do what they thought is good for their community to be more than a bit over the top."
Nobody has done that. Ott should be commended for his volunteerism. I haven't read one person rag on him for that.
It is what he claims. Did he rescue the theatre? Not alone, but I could see him taking credit for that. No harm done there.
Did he restore the theatre? Absolutely not. In fact, he borrowed $35,0000 for repairs, failed to pay it back, stopped a roof job midstream and hightailed it out of there.
That, my friend, is cause for concern. It is pretty clear to me that the current President does not think Ott restored the theatre.
If Ott cannot handle $35k, how will he handle $400 MM?
It appears to me that Ott probably should have left this matter out of his claim to fame.
Bernie –
Ott’s claim that he “started a nonprofit organization that saved the Embassy Theater”, or started “a nonprofit organization to rescue and restore a historic theater…” appear to be true. He seems to be claiming credit for starting the non profit, and nothing you or Casey have written contradicts that. He is not claiming to have restored the theater (as the work obviously remains in progress) but to have started a non profit for that purpose.
According to your post, the current President came on to the board after Ott had already left, so I can’t say that he is the best source to say what Ott is or isn’t responsible for. As far as the roof and other repairs not being completed, perhaps that’s all the further the funds they had would take them.
As to the loan, (according to Casey) Ott had left Lewistown for personal reasons WITHIN 6 MONTHS of initiating the Embassy Theater campaign. So the fact that the 2 year loan you cite was not paid back during the first six months surely can’t be blamed on Ott, since it was not yet due.
I do find it interesting that there seems to be great effort to make it clear that Ott was not solely responsible for saving the theater, yet there also appears to be an equally great effort by some to make him appear solely responsible for the loan. Nonprofits and boards are set up so that one person does not have sole decision-making authority and to ensure continuity when individuals leave.
If you’re truly concerned about the loan, perhaps a better question for the current Board President would have been why the board has only paid back $10,000 of the $35,000 loan over the last 18 YEARS.
In the end, it appears that Ott is being taken to task for the fact that the non-profit did not pay the loan back - 18 MONTHS EARLY – while he was board President. If you think that’s fair, that’s fine, but I think most reasonable people would disagree.
Mike, you make several good points. One Problem: You put on blinders and refuse to ask yourself this question:
What happened that made Scott Ott put so much time and effort into something (as he himself claims) and then bail on it?
Maybe Mr Ott could avail himself to the curious public and answer that question.
Or would you find that too much to ask of the candidate?
It isn't going to get easier for him.
He played some pretty nasty hardball in the primary, does he think he gets to skate in the general? He better think again. This isn't 2009 when no one was awake. People are pissed, and he better have his facts in order.
Beelzebub here -
Casey and O'Hare are only doing as I instructed them. I can't have Scott Ott doing the Lords work in Lehigh County.
If you wish to save these wretched souls from the eternal damnation of more taxes, you are going to have to do better than Ottster.
Can I get an AMEN!
Chris -
Although I don't know for sure, to me the likely answer is obvious - it looks like Ott's personal situation changed. Far from bailing, he obviously set something up (the non profit) that continues to this day.
I have no blinders on about any candidate, but I would like to see the scrutiny evenly applied.
You're right that people are "pissed", but it's because their county property taxes were unnecessarily raised by 16%. To those who weren't awake, I'll happily help wake them up to that fact.
In that respect, let me pose a couple of questions that I think is far more relevant to Lehigh County taxpayers:
On the night that the Commissioners voted 5-4 to let Don Cunningham's 16% tax hike stand, where were the Democrat commissioner candidates?
I know that Republicans Ott, Scheller & Mazziotti were there and were against the hike. Democrat Commissioner Hamm was voting to raise taxes, which I'll (again) happily wake people up about.
But where were the other 3 Democrat candidates? Surely they would have been in attendance for such an important issue. Did/do they support the unnecessary tax hike?
I'll look forward to the investigation on those questions.
Mike,
You know I respect you, but you most certainly do have the blinders on when it comes to Ott. You are parsing words, but the reality is that Ott used the Embassy Theatre in his race for Excec and, now, for Commissioner. Any reasonable person reading his claims would conclude that Ott did save and restore it. That's the whole point of mentioning it in the context of a campaign. But he did neither, although I think I'd give him a pass on the save claim.
What is more, Ott was the first President there, encumbered the facility with a $35k loan in July 1991, and when he left in '92 or '93, the facility was a sinking ship, with no effort to repay the loan. Mr Fagerty is the second President, and certainly is familiar with the mess that Ott left for him.
What mess will he leave for the people of Lehigh County?
Speaking of blinders, why is Ott getting an anal from you and Chris Casey when we have a local state rep that has had 3 incidents involving alcohol abuse in one year? I only read one report about him here and you tried to spin it as he is only human. Just wondering....
Very simple. The difference is that Joe admits he has a problem and has sought help for it. It hurts him and his family much more than it hurts you or me. There is no dishonesty; there is no wasting of public resources.
In Ott's case, he does not even know he has a problem and that his used car salesman personum turns many of us off. He can misrepresent his involvement in a local theatre and will be stridently defended, not bc he is right, but bc he is a hard-right conservative. He can borrow $35k, spend it, take off, make no attempt to pay it back and be long gone when someone else takes over.
He can't even claim the moral high ground, though he likes to quote the Bible every three seconds. I'll leave it at that.
Very simple. The difference is that Joe admits he has a problem and has sought help for it. It hurts him and his family much more than it hurts you or me. There is no dishonesty; there is no wasting of public resources.
In Ott's case, he does not even know he has a problem and that his used car salesman personum turns many of us off. He can misrepresent his involvement in a local theatre and will be stridently defended, not bc he is right, but bc he is a hard-right conservative. He can borrow $35k, spend it, take off, make no attempt to pay it back and be long gone when someone else takes over.
He can't even claim the moral high ground, though he likes to quote the Bible every three seconds. I'll leave it at that.
A drunk driver, by himself, hurts nobody until he is involved in an auto accident. Because of the danger he presents, it is entirely appropriate that it be an offense. But Brennan hurt nobody but himself and his family. He lied to nobody, did not try to misrepresent himself, and has only one wife.
Ok, so now having "two wives" is worse then driving drunk. You really are a complete waste. Give this man a break and get a real job Bernie becaue you really are no reporter.
You attempt to divert attention away from Ott by throwing out what happened to Joe Brennan. When I point out the difference, you treat Joe's battle with alcohol as though it is some kind of moral defect. When I point out that at least Joe has not had two wives, you have a hissy fit about being called on your own bullshit. You're right. I am no reporter But I can smell bullshit a mile away, and I smell it in Ott and in you.
Chris/Bernie
I'm guessing neither of you have attempted to run, start or were ever an officer in an all volunteer non-profit. In my experience, it is often much harder than even Government in that the volunteer groups are made up of folks who have no time leading busy lives; have limited resources and/or skills. They are not getting paid for their committment. Its not unusual for volunteers, even officers, to come and go. Its not unusual for the leaders to have less than spotless accomplishments given the situation. None of this indicates fault or poor performance per se. The mere fact that the group accomplished any goal is to be lauded. I can think of a few local prominent non-profits that failed miserably, or devolved into bickering chaos, or could not achieve any goal. I can think of others that were a front for personal corruption. This theature group appears to be neither. I would not criticise a volunteer in this era of "me-ism". Those who should be criticized are those who do or attempt nothing. This is not one of those situations.
nlv
Fair enough, but at the same time, Ott should not have tried to create the impression that it was a smashing success.
Tom Creighton's "CONTRACT WITH COUNTY TAXPAYERS"
I will balance the county budget without increasing property taxes or raiding county reserves.
Paid for by the lehigh county victory pac.
For the record, I have volunteered my time and effort on a non profit or two. Nothing as grandiose as the Embassy theater, but I don't trumpet my offerings as making me worthy of running the County either. I put things in perspective.
I come from the school of thought that it's better to do a job and not be noticed. Knowing you did what was right is reward enough. I always wonder of the motivations of those who brag about how christian and devout they are. Show, don't tell.
Bernie can cry, his asshole buddy Chrizz Casey can cry. It doesn't matter. Just as they triumphed in May, the new candidates will win in November.
Scott will be the top vote getter despite your mud slinging.
Better try harder or Donnie boy will have to have his goldbrick buddies clean out their desks. Scott and the team know who they are.
God Bless the taxpayers friends. Go Scott!
Wow
This is far too confusing. Are you saying Ott rescued the theatre with his first wife, a disc jockey, while married to his second wife, perhaps
considered a very understanding sort of woman. Now, is he still married to the second wife or is there now a third?
NO. But he married his second wife pretty quickly after getting rid of the first one, and naturally, attended the seminary.
The problem with Scott Ott is that he is full of crap and it's stinking up Lehigh County. He's an advocate of the Constitution but recently admitted that he didn’t know there were Anti-Federalists until he read a book about it last summer. He's either dumb or lying.
To the point about marriage, watch the first 3 minutes of this video recorded in 2009-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZk4XeNk0vQ. I especially like this exchange:
Ott: “The difference is a contract can be broken and a covenant is not made to be broken because there is a third party involved and in our case it’s Jesus.”
Avalon: “I believe it is a covenant not a contract but if you extend that logically out then Christians should never get divorced.”
Ott: “Amen.”
That's what bothers me about faux Christians. They impose all kinds of standards on others that they don't apply to themselves. The most Christian people I know are Jews.
Now wait, that citation is taken completely out of context. The video was a discussion on gay marriage.
Scott spoke about the state's role in marriage. Scott said marriage is largely private. That's all. Watch the whole video.
The memorable quote of the day was from Glen Reynolds, who envisioned a day where gay couples had a closet full of assault weapons. Too funny, but it did underscore the issue, individual freedom.
You've slammed it into imposed religious standards, which it not what Scott said.
I agree with the comment on one part, that is, watch the video. Dont take our interpretation, mine, Bernie's or worse, the anonymous poster.
Actually, the video is quite entertaining.
nlv
Post a Comment