Editor’s note: The following story was edited to reflect a change in the acreage of the land the theater was built on. During the writing a comma instead of period was placed in the story. rrspin.com regrets the error.
As the city waits for its attorney to file a motion on its civil suit against Lafayette Gatling, both the mayor and city manager have to look at the implications of not having revenues from the Roanoke Rapids Theatre in the upcoming fiscal year budget.
“We’ve got to do something,” Mayor Emery Doughtie said today. “We’ve got to get it generating. We can’t go anymore without raising taxes or selling it.”
With Gatling still in the theater, the city is not negotiating with anyone interested in running the venue. That doesn’t mean, however, it is not taking plans from different parties, Doughtie said. “People can tell us what they can do. We are asking them to send us information about their business. We’ll call the ones we’re interested in.”
The mayor said he has had one party call him three to four times. “We don’t want to turn down anyone that may benefit us.”
While there is much interest from people who have the talent and ability to run the venue, Doughtie said, “They don’t have the resources, they want the city to front that. We would like to sell it. If they’re willing to come in and share in the revenues it’s a win-win.”
City Manager Paul Sabiston said today he agrees with Doughtie’s assessment. “We can’t keep going into our theater reserve.”
Sabiston said City Attorney Gilbert Chichester is expected to file the first motion in the suit next week, a motion the city hopes will give it control of the theater during the litigation. Following a decision on that motion a trial date should be set on the matter within the next seven to 10 days.
Since filing the suit last week, Gatling’s debt has grown by $74,000 and is now more than $300,000.
The seven page civil lawsuit contains four evidence exhibits which include the notice ending Gatling’s contract with the city, a letter demanding the property and past due rent back, the lease agreement with the city and the contract for Gatling and L&M Hospitality to buy the 8.822 acres of land on which the venue is located.
The city contends in the lawsuit it entered valid contracts with Gatling through the lease and agreement to buy the land. The city says it has complied with the terms of the documents and that Gatling has committed material breaches of the documents while the city has given notice they have not been corrected.
In proving the breach of contract the city contends Gatling failed and refused to pay his rent on time and failed and refused to correct and pay the rent.
The city charges Gatling failed and refused to provide written evidence that he has applied for, has obtained and maintained a required policy of liability and property insurance.
The city claims Gatling rented, subleased and or assigned a portion of the property without written consent.
In seeking immediate possession the city contends the security system is not being operated and life, property and casualty insurance is not being maintained.
The lawsuit also uses Gatling’s failure and refusal to pay the lease amount as grounds for immediate possession and he continues to wrongfully keep the property.
In seeking injunctive relief, the city says the property is titled to and owned by the city and Gatling has “committed multiple breaches of the contracts that are the subject of this complaint. Defendant’s alleged breaches exposes the city’s property to potentially catastrophic loss and damages.”
The city is capable and willing to provide insurance coverage on the building, the lawsuit says, and to secure and protect it pending this litigation.
The city seeks the following:
• Possession of the venue pending litigation.
• An order declaring Gatling in default.
• An order declaring the city is the rightful owner.
• Monetary relief as the court deems proper.
• An order granting plaintiff costs, interest and attorney fees.
• Other relief the court deems proper.
