Arkansas Reporter
THE
IN S IDE R
Walton gives and Walton takes The extreme views of three Republican legislative candidates — Reps. Loy Mauch of Bismarck and Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro and former Rep. Charlie Fuqua of Batesville — have gained international attention as news has spread of their writings. Slavery, immigrants and capital punishment are among the topics on which they’ve expressed unusual sentiments. Jesus condoned slavery, Mauch observed, for example. The views apparently aren’t cause for alarm among Republicans hoping to win a majority in the Arkansas legislature this year. Republican Party Chair Doyle Webb, appearing on the Dave Elswick Show on KARN Radio, said he expected the controversial candidates — characterized as “monkey butts” by Elswick — to win. Webb said the Republican Party believed in “freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.” No belief, no matter how repugnant, is a disqualifier for Republican support if a candidate is a potential winner. Or so it seems Jim Walton, the billionaire son of Walmart founder Sam Walton and a successful banker in his own right, does have a limit, however. He’d contributed to Loy Mauch’s campaign, but asked for his $500 back after news of Mauch’s views was widely circulated. Walton’s support of Mauch was noted on the website of a union that has long fought Walmart on organizing issues. A spokesman for Walton volunteered a copy of Walton’s letter to the Arkansas Times, not typically favored with comment from Walton, perhaps on account of the newspaper’s critical views of his effort to flood Arkansas with charter schools through a more compliant legislature. Walton wrote Mauch Oct. 22: “I am writing to ask you to return the contribution for $500 I sent your campaign. The contribution was made because of your support for education reform in Arkansas. Since making the contribution, however, I have learned about some of your views on other issues with which I disagree. I would appreciate the return of the funds as soon as possible.” Mauch, who’s written letters to Arkansas newspapers for years espousing his neo-Confederate views, sent Walton’s money back, a Walton family spokesman said.
Speaking of the Waltons Walton money — and that of other wealthy conservative tycoons — has bankrolled a number of organizations working to expand CONTINUED ON PAGE 13 12
OCTOBER 31, 2012
ARKANSAS TIMES
TECH TALK: Former Congressman Vic Snyder moderated for Charles Dilks at public hearings at UALR on the tech park.
Tech park check list Sites, four. Support for them, great. Private investment, none. BY LESLIE NEWELL PEACOCK
I
n the back and forth last week between a consultant for the Little Rock Technology Park board and boosters of various sites they’d like the board to choose for the park, only a few times did a crucial issue raise its scary head: Money. Charles Dilks, the consultant who winnowed to four the 23 sites proposed as alternatives to three residential areas that had been considered, referred in public hearings held Oct. 23 and 24 with the public to what he considers “best practices” in park development: Starting small with private, federal, state and local dollars, funding commitments from sponsoring universities and anchor institutions on board. The Little Rock park has, so far, only a pledge of local investment, $20 million over 10 years from a half-penny sales tax levied since the beginning of 2012, less than half the estimated $50 million cost of building the first structure at the park. This is a far cry from the Virginia Bio-Technology Research Park, which
is listed on the Little Rock park’s website as a comparable venture. That park was a joint venture of Virginia Commonwealth University, the city of Richmond and the state of Virginia. It opened in 1995 with two VCU research institutes on its campus. The Piedmont Triad Research Park, another comparable site listed on the Little Rock park’s website, has as its anchor tenant the Wake Forest School of Medicine’s Department of Physiology and Pharmacology. In a section on financial feasibility, the Angle Technology study — commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce in 2007 in its effort to get the tech park ball rolling and in which Dilks participated — states that without commitments from private companies, the sponsoring universities are going to have to be the financial backbone of the initial construction at the park, by renting half of the building. Universities’ “rental commitment” would “range from $495,000 to $990,000 a year,” based on an annual rental commitment of $19.75
per square foot for 25,000 to 50,000 square feet, the plan says. Tech park plans call for construction of a 100,000-squarefoot building in the first phase. “As a matter of best practice, sponsoring institutions have to take leadership in moving [the park] forward,” Dilks told the Arkansas Times. That means the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock must make to a financial commitment “to space or providing land and importantly putting activities in the park that are particularly attractive.” That would include a building or a “new research institute.” He added, “as to what would make sense here, that would depend on the site. … I don’t know the specifics of what is possible here.” The city sales tax is financing the purchase of the land and infrastructure improvements. The tech park board is looking for another $10 million from the state, $15 million in private donations and $1.45 million in grants. The commitment from UALR, UAMS, the city of Little Rock and Arkansas Children’s Hospital (which is not a sponsor but has pledged financial support) is $500,000, or $125,000 each. But more than that will not be forthcoming from UAMS, said Chancellor Dan Rahn. “It’s conceivable if we have continued research and commercial potential that there could be an extension [of UAMS’ campus incubator Bioventures] into the tech park ... but that’s really private space. There’s no envisioning putting laboratories in the park.” Even with front-end funding, the Richmond park and two other parks on the Little Rock tech park website — Innovista in South Carolina and the Presbyterian Health Foundation research park in Oklahoma City —have had their share of struggles. VCU pulled its funding from Virginia Bio-Technology and the park has turned for help to the state, which has legislated several generous tax breaks for biotech firms. Innovista ran out of money in 2009 and couldn’t complete construction of its first buildings until last year. The Presbyterian Health Foundation in Oklahoma City, its finances strained by park costs to the point it could no longer make grants, is selling its research park to the University of Oklahoma. At the two “facilitated hearings” moderated by a neutral Vic Snyder, the former congressman for the 2nd District and a CONTINUED ON PAGE 19