“Phantom of the Fox” Angry, Likely Leaving
Decatur Metro | August 31, 2010 | 10:55 amI don’t know many of the details of this, but jeez, this got ugly fast. From the AJC…
Joe Patten, the 83-year-old known as the “Phantom of the Fox,” did not sign a new lease that the Fox Theatre’s board drew up for him Monday and likely will be leaving his apartment in the historic theater.
Patten had been living in the apartment for 30 years and planned to remain there for the rest of his life. The Fox’s board on Monday terminated that lease and offered him a new one — that said he could remain there rent-free until he needs round-the-clock care.
…”Saving the Fox was the worst mistake I ever made,” Patten said. “I made a serious mistake in saving this building. It wasn’t worth it.”
“I’m out. I’m ready to leave now,” he said. “It’s really upsetting.”
Related Posts:
-
April 16, 2015 Eye on the Cemetery (6)
-
April 16, 2015 danceDanceDANCE Event Along East Howard Avenue Will Promote “EcoArts District” Concept (2)
-
April 27, 2015 Check Out the Latest Avondale MARTA Station Development Site Plan (1)
What is wrong with people these days? Why do we treat other human beings like trash? How dare them throw this old man out and violate a LEGAL CONTRACT. He was guaranteed a lifetime lease and now they do not have the integrity to honor it? I won’t spend another dime at The Fox!!!!
So the non profit foundation that he created removed his attorney from the room but left their two attorneys for the “session” with the elderly sick man.
Yeah, that’s ugly
so I know how he helped to save the Fox, and how absurd this all has been. I didn’t know that he started the organization that is kicking him out. That’s true? Even adds another layer of absurdity to it. Defintiely makes me want to boycott the Fox.
Joe volunteered in the ’60’s to work on the classical organ “The Mighty Mo” restoring it to original magnificence. After ticket sales fell in the late ’70s the theater was put up for sale with the prospective new owner, Southern Bell, planning to use the property for a surface parking lot adjacent to their planned new high-rise. Joe and a few friends formed “Save the Fox” to save the theater from the wrecking ball resulting in HIS creation of “Atlanta Landmarks” the saviour, and current owner, of the Fox Theatre. Due to his hard work, Atlanta Landmarks granted him a rent-free life time lease to an area of the theatre that previously used as an office space for the Shriners and condered “useless” . Joe spent his own money, rumored to be be over 1 million dollars, to set up his large (=/- 3600 sq ft) but ,simple living space. The main driving factor in Joe being awarded the space was due to “urban Flight” during the late ’70s and early 80’s. Restoration was becoming impossible due to theft and vandalism to the property. In the mid nighties an electrical short caused an attic fire. Joe, alerting the fire department and leading them to the source of the blaze, once again saved the Fox from utter destruction -Brian hammock.
Fox Theatre is no-man’s-land for me too, from now on. How dare they do this to Mr. Patten?
We need to get as many responses to this thread as the Dollar General thread has and then get the AJC to report on the community response.
Firing off emails & making phone calls on Mr. Patten’s behalf is also an excellent way to burn off any Dollar General related frustrations! :0)
And nobody will even accuse me of accusing them of being racist 😉
They are allowing him to continue to live in a 3000sq ft apartment rent free as he has for the last 31 years until he needs round the clock care? I dont see how that is unreasonable.
Yeah, it sounds really reasonable if you frame it that way and leave out some important points.
1. He’s been living there rent free for 31 years based on lifetime lease granted to him in appreciation for his work in saving the building in the first place.
2. Under the new lease, drafted unilaterally by the landlord, he will be forced to leave not when he needs round the clock care, but when the board decides he needs round the clock care.
See the difference?
There are more detailed reports out there in the media (esp tv) about this new lease: 1) He can’t have any visitors unless approved by the board. 2) There’s no security whatsoever: he can be removed at anytime should the board find reason/cause to do so.
Oh, and don’t forget that when the board met to finalize and vote on this new lease, they invited Mr. Patten but had his attorney escorted out of the room by an Atlanta Police Officer while their two attorneys stayed in the room. But yeah, I’m sure that they’re only looking out for his best interest.
The spin doctors are on it.
It turns out that Mr. Paten is a befuddled sick old man who needed help understanding that “the rest of your life” really means “when it’s convenient for us”.
WSB’s article is totally in line with the corporate version, and Fox’s article has been taken down. The dead link was still there. Probably getting revised.
It’s interesting to watch how this is done in real time- Corporations systematically destroying a noble person’s dignity. Let’s see how long it takes for negative innuendo on Mr. Paten to start surfacing.
Beware of the accuracy of any news article in which the facts were gathered by a television station. In my decades as a journalist, I recall very few instances in which I have covered a story and noticed few errors in the corresponding broadcast story.
I fail to see how a corporation which has let a man live rent-free in their building, paying part of their utilities, and who has checked on him periodically, does pose a danger to him.
And if anybody has ever dealt with an elderly relative, they sometimes are quite stubborn and uncooperative about recognizing when they need help. Lots of elderly folks continue to drive when they shouldn’t. I don’t know this man, I don’t know all of the facts in this case. I’m just skeptical.
Or. one could read it …he returned from hospitalization to find a letter suggesting he move out. Followed immediately by a meeting to “renegotiate” the longstanding terms of his reward for a lifetime of extraordinary services and accomplishments. A meeting where a police officer forced him to face the board alone without his legal counsel. reasonable? No.
Please also don’t miss the detail that the board asked him to live there so he could be available to maintain the theater.
Joe also sunk his own money into making the space into an apartment. If we approach this issue with curiosity before judgment then the injustice of it the situation will become clear to all. Joe only just retired in 2004.
Not only did that letter come within a few days of his return from the hospital, it suggested he enter a nursing home! Do they know his doctor? I am still in shock over this. This man SAVED the Fox. The board wouldn’t exist if not for him. So it’s “thanks for all your help but you’re old so we don’t want you here any more.” Ridiculous!
I would not want to be at the whim of the Fox board as to when I am considered “too sick” to stay in my home. He’s absolutely right to not sign the new lease. I won’t be going to the Fox anytime soon, I can tell you that. They don’t deserve my money.
This is appalling.
The clause in the “new lease” that says he is not allowed to have “visitors” without board approval appears to mean that he could not engage/employ help with his personal care if he and his doctor deemed it necessary in the future. What a cold-hearted bunch. I despair of humankind whenever something like this happens in “our world”. This is not acceptable. I will not be a part of it, their devious selfishness, greed, and cruelty.
This is my best guess on the conversation that went on before they decide to “rewrite” his lease:
“Hey, there’s an old guy upstairs, he’s sitting on 3,000 square feet of money makin'”
Gee, he’s old, isn’t he? Doesn’t he need to be in a nursing home? Don’t WE need that space?
But he’s some kind of historic figure, isn’t he? Didn’t he do something to save this building? I can’t remember what …..
Wow, but you gotta think, we could be liable if he falls or somethin. That would be bad publicity!
Let’s figure out a way to get him out of there.
(Enter Snidley Whiplash)
Don’t forget the part where someone says, “This old guy even had the nerve to call a lawyer just because we’re trying to give him some much needed nursing home time. It’s some old dude with a funny name, but our lawyers say he’s one of the most respected attorneys in the country, let alone this city. Damn, this could be trouble, since we’re probably on some shaky legal ground. Oh, wait, I know, we’ll just call the police!”
Could there be some loss control or prevention measures being taken by the Fox given the risks involved with continuing the current arrangement? What sort of liability would they have if he were to fall in the middle of the night or if one of his guests were to have something happen to them while inside the building? How many millions would it cost them then? Frankly, I understand a corporations need to close up any loopholes and look at any possible scenario especially in a situation where they are doing something like this to accommodate an employee. In many instances the company will try to bend over backwards to help someone like this and then end up paying for it in the end. If you ran a business and were subject to people suing you all the time, you might want to protect yourself.
Of course, you can be sued for violating a contract. Which is what it sounds like they’re doing.
I hope Mr. Patten does sue them for violating his contract. That would likely provide monetary compensation to him for his future, which I hope is a long and healthy life. If the Fox was concerned about liability, they have sure put their foot in the bucket now! I’m quite sure their operations included insurance coverage of every type — fire, hazard, accident, liability, etc. Any patron or visitor to the theatre, for a performance, a tour, or any purpose within that building or on its premises, could sue them for damages if there were cause. Looks like the almighty board has just brought one such cause to the forefront without regard to the consequences…
Not that I think this is ok, but was it a contract? Was there consideration? A contract is a give-and-take. Performances already rendered doesn’t suffice.
I don’t know–maybe when the performances already rendered creates the board with which he has a contract. That is, if the lease is in the form of a contract. It seems if they are trying to get him to sign a new lease then his old lease was probably signed. Sounds like a contract to me.
He’s getting screwed, but this is an idiotic statement:
“Saving the Fox was the worst mistake I ever made,” Patten said. “I made a serious mistake in saving this building. It wasn’t worth it.”
If he stands by that statement after his anger wears off , he’s one of the biggest a-holes Atlanta has ever known.
I’d consider boycotting the Fox over this, but after having to withstand audiences who almost always loudly converse through entire concerts, I don’t have any desire to go back.
It sounds like Mr. Patten was only in it for the free apartment.
Where have you been? This man put his heart and sole into saving this theater two times! if it were not for him, it would have been demolished back in the 70s when Bell South came along. Pay attention.
So, you’re saying you agree that he should have let it burn to the ground, causing Atlanta to lose one of it’s greatest historical landmarks, just because there was a nasty contract dispute a few decades in his future?
What he did for the Fox changed Atlanta for the better. That’s indisputable.
If he had let the Fox burn, Atlanta as a whole would be worse off for it, but at least he wouldn’t have to go apartment hunting.
It’s pretty easy for me to say that we’re not going back to the Fox again, but I wish I could do more.
Any chance the Atlanta Ballet might consider moving their annual performance of The Nutcracker? I remember it being held at the Civic Center in year’s past.
Boondoggle Troll! Brilliant!!
The Fox’s performing companies with phone#s:
http://www.foxtheatre.org/boxOfficeTicket.aspx
(Their listed sponsors like COCA COLA could nip this real quick!)
Well not going to the Fox anytime soon but A couple of things bug me about this story. How can a lease for life be revoked before the end of that life? Legally I mean. How come every suspect (and by extension every criminal) has the right to the presence of a lawyer but an upstanding citizen is prevented from having a lawyer present?
As for Mr Patten’s reaction I think it is normal if you devote time and energy to something and it all gets thrown back in your face (doesn’t matter the time gap) you are bound to feel like you wasted your time and should have devoted that time and energy to something else (that can be equally worthy).
There must be other ways of protecting the Fox from any liability
The way I see it, the board has already committed a liable act in cancelling his contract/lease without cause according to the terms of that original agreement. I’m no lawyer, but I hope someone else reading here is, and can comment on this aspect of Mr. Patten’s situation and prospects.
I’m not sure anyone can comment on that unless and until they read the actual lease. But even if Patten has an absolute right to stay there under the lease as drafted, his only recourse is to file a lawsuit. And the sad fact is that he might very well pass away before such a suit reached its conclusion. Even if he won, his damages would likely be measured by the difference between his rent at the Fox (zero) and the market value of a similar apartment for the rest of his life. Since he is obviously quite old and appears to be quite frail, I doubt that we’d be talking about a huge amount of money.
So yes, he has legal rights here. But practically, they may not be worth a whole lot. That’s the system, for better or (in this case) worse.
Not really. He can file for immediate injunctive relief to keep them from evicting him (if that’s what they plan to do if he doesn’t sign the new lease). It’s not a matter of damages here, it’s a matter of whether they can kick him out. It will come down largely to the wording in the lease. However, 31 years course of dealing is pretty strong evidence on his side as well.
He can file for anything. But he can’t get an injunction unless damages would do him no good. The Fox can legitimately argue that he can find another place to live, so his only real complaint is that he will have to pay rent — a harm for which damages clearly would be an adequate remedy. I’m not saying his chances of winning an injunction are zero, but they’re nowhere near 100% either, based on the facts as I understand them.
The whole point is that monetary damages would not compensate him. It’s not just a matter of paying rent. It’s having to move at his age to a new place when he’s had a justifiable expectation of being able to live in his home until he dies. You can’t just substitute one apartment for another in this very unique situation. I’m pretty sure just about any Fulton County Superior Court judge would see it this way. I’m absolutely certain they’d see it this way if Emmet Bondurant is making the argument.
Upsetting a justifable expectation isn’t necessarily a ticket to an injunction. Of course, every contract gives rise to a justifiable expectation of something, but not every breach of contract is grounds for an injunction. I understand your argument, I just don’t think it is particularly clear cut. But by all means, let him file for it. Maybe he’ll win.
Yeah, but the judges are elected. The only way they don’t get re-elected is if their name gets in the news for something negative or stupid. Which one of them do you think would not sign an order allowing Joe to stay if the facts are anything like they’re portrayed above? (OK, I’ll give you Arrington and Schwall; they’re both crazy enough to do or say anything. I’ll take my chances with the other 18 or so).
Again, not sure there would be a binding contract here to begin with. What would the consideration have been? Sounds more like a one sided gift to me.
Walrus, I may be not remembering this right, but I think the document has always been referred to as a “lifetime lease”.
Maybe, but without consideration, it would not be a binding contract; they can call it whatever they like. I haven’t seen it, but i’m just saying it may be a bit presumptuous to call it a contract.
The right to a lawyer is a little more complicated than most people understand. The only time you are absolutely guaranteed the right to a lawyer is when you are accused of a crime. That’s why we have public defenders (as pathetically funded as they may be, especially in this state right now) for criminal defendants who can’t afford a lawyer.
You do not have an absolute right to a lawyer outside of criminal proceedings. The government is not required to appoint you a lawyer for civil litigation. However, you always the right to retain your lawyer. In Mr. Patten’s case, even though no litigation has been initiated, he is represented by a lawyer (and a very, very good one at that). The board, meeting on private property for a meeting outside the scope of litigation, was within its rights to tell Mr. Patten that his lawyer was not welcome. It may not be the best PR decision, but they could do it.
There’s a little twist here, though, that could be interesting. Had the board’s lawyers not been present, there would have been no problem. However, lawyers have certain ethical duties and obligations when dealing with opposing parties. Although no suit had yet been filed, Mr. Patten and the board are clearly opposing parties with conflicting interests. When someone is represented by a lawyer, the lawyer for the opposing party cannot easily and freely communicate with the represented party.
The best course to avoid ethical problems is for all communication to go through each party’s attorney. But here, it appears that two lawyers for one party were present in the meeting between the parties. If either of the lawyers said anything to Mr. Patten that could be construed as any sort of legal advice, they technically violated a Bar Rule (and this rule is construed liberally against the lawyer). It astounds me that any lawyer would want to be present at a meeting between their client and an opposing party. It’s absolutely unforgiveable to be present after proactively prohibiting opposing counsel’s presence.
Sounds like the Fox Theatre Board and their counsel are not familiar with the theory of holes…
When you’re in one, stop digging.
1. betray a hometown hero that practically created their organization
2. destroy credibility and goodwill with the community
3. renege on a binding contract
4. violate legal ethical rules
.
it gets deeper and deeper
You have enumerated the steps leading down in the hole very well… I’m watching this story all the way down. I hope there will be an “up” side to the story at the end, and not something unbearably sad and disgraceful.
Just an FYI- a lot of people on the original Save the Fox board are lawyers. Very big shot lawyers. I know a few of them. I have a funny feeling he will have excellent representation should he choose to sue. The people I know who know Mr. Patten from the 70s and before adore him; or did. So I HOPE they come to his aid!
JT, I just got the link for the AJC article to open (wasn’t opening for some reason) and I see Mr. Patten has Emmet Bondurant representing him. Couldn’t do much better or find someone who fight harder. And the gentleman behind him in the photo is another prominent retired attorney who was a core member of the original trustee group that save the Fox in the first place.
JT, I just got the link for the AJC article to open (wasn’t opening for some reason) and I see Mr. Patten has Emmet Bondurant representing him. Couldn’t do much better or find someone who will fight harder for the best outcome. I wonder if he was the lawyer they removed. Must have been an interesting encounter then. (Local note: Jason Carter is an associate in Emmet’s firm).
And the gentleman behind him in the photo is another prominent retired attorney who was a core member of the original trustee group that saved the Fox in the first place.
From what I understand, it was Emmet they had removed. It must have been a pretty amusing scene.
And yes, it looks like Mr. Patten is set as far as legal representation goes. But the court of public opinion is what the Fox folks should really be concerned about!
Wish I had been a fly on the wall. I have been trapped between Emmet and Republican during election year! It ain’t pretty!
Here is what the Fox stated on their FB page just now:
An update on Joe Patten
by The Fox Theatre Atlanta on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 4:37pm
The Fox has always been surrounded by myths; some true, some false. There a myth that has been repeatedly posted on Facebook that needs to be addressed concerning our resident, Joe Patten.
People are writing that the new lease does not allow Joe to have any guests into his home. Or if he does, the guests have to be pre-approved by the Board of Atlanta Landmarks. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The new lease does NOT contain this clause. It’s Joe’s home and he can invite over whomever he wants, whenever he wants.
This was a blatant lie intended to smear the Fox.
Joe’s attorney sent us a letter telling us that we were not allowed to contact Joe. In lieu of giving Joe his lease, we gave it to his attorney over a week ago. We expected that he would give Joe the paperwork. As of right now, we do not know if Joe has even seen the new lease.
We, the Fox, have choices to make. We have the ability to cease the entire story with giving everyone all the information. But this is a private matter. Just because Joe’s friends want to smear the Fox and the news media cannot paint a fair picture does not mean that they are giving you the whole truth.
We want what is best for Joe and we are continuing to speak with his attorney. We are hopeful this issue will end in the near future with Joe staying in his apartment.
CFN – I note in the newest story in the AJC that the Fox people confirm explicitly that “the new lease” does indeed contain the provision that no person can enter Mr. Patten’s residence without prior written permission of the Fox management. So, their FB entry as given above is another lie. And since this apartment is Mr. Patten’s HOME, how can they legally demand that he have no visitors unless they give prior approval?
Isn’t it funny that when the truth comes out and the truth is very ugly, organizations start complaining about the news media?
Time for the AJC to publish the full list of the board members and their contact information. This is Atlanta, by Gawd, and we are better than to toss an old inconvenient man out of his house.
Atlanta is better than this? I don’t know. All it would take is for someone to make an anonymous call to the APD narcotics unit with a tip that Mr. Patten is selling drugs out of his apartment and he might end up like Kathryn Johnston. Yeah, Atlanta is not always better than this.
I’m worried about Mr. Patten’s safety at the hands of The Fox staff if he stays on! Bet it’s heavy on Mr. Patten’s mind! They’ve made little effort to disguise their contempt for him.
Is it customary to use the police to handle the ushering of lawyers out of meetings? What the heck?
I just contacted Coca-Cola by phone, and spoke to their corporate offices. They took my name, address, etc., and heard my complaint. They will get back to me in 7-10 days. Then I called Delta and was told to log my comments at http://www.delta.com/sponsorship. The website promises a response, but no indication of how soon that might be.
Received today (reply on behalf of Allan Vella, Fox Theatre GM) :
Thank you for your email of a few days ago. We wanted to wait until after the Board meeting to respond. We truly appreciate you taking the time to contact us and share your thoughts. All comments will be reviewed and shared with management. We know that the Fox holds a very
special place in the hearts of many Atlantans, and we are very cognizant of that.
Please know that we all care very much for Joe.
The Board of Atlanta Landmarks, Joe included, have all known each other for over 30 years and all worked together to save this building. They are good people that are truly heartbroken that it has come to this.
All of this is part of a conversation that has been going on with Joe for the past few years. With increasing frequency over the last two years, Joe’s friends have called on the Fox staff to go check on Joe when he has been unresponsive or hard to reach. This entire conversation evolved out of our concern for Joe as he has required more and more assistance from our staff, and most recently, from the EMT that was here during a performance.
Joe’s attorney had the new occupancy agreement in hand for over a week before Monday’s meeting. Based on Joe’s comments on Monday, we are not even sure that he has seen it for himself.
Under the previous lease, there was a requirement for Joe to provide security for the building, which is no longer a requirement. In addition, the previous lease never contemplated the issues related to aging and assisted living. That is why a new occupancy agreement was
written.
The building is a theatre, first and foremost. It is a commercial facility and it is not designed for 24/7 elder care. The new lease addresses this. At this time, Joe and his attorney tell us that he does not want or need our assistance, and that he does not want or need access to the building – that he is totally capable of taking care of himself. Removing access to the building was not a Fox initiative.
Please allow me to be clear – that the Board of Atlanta Landmarks has NEVER used the word “evict” and they did NOT vote to evict. It is their desire to have Joe remain in the apartment for as long as he is able. Last Friday the Board presented Joe’s attorney with a new occupancy
agreement, and they have not responded to it. This occupancy agreement continues to allow him to live at the Fox rent free, and the Fox will continue to pay the majority of his utilities as we have for the last 31 years.
It appears that Joe has been misinformed by his advisors. To be clear – Joe is welcome to live here at the Fox as long as he is able.
Thank you again for your email, and your concern.
The Fox Theatre
OK, so now that we have a bit more info from the Fox, here’s the disconnect for me: The Fox says that the theatre isn’t designed of 24/7 elderly care…whatever that means. So does that mean that Joe couldn’t have live-in help? I don’t understand this point. They need to clarify whatever the logistical issues are.
On top of that, Joe has not even asked for 24/7 care. So, what is forcing the Fox to confront this “issue” right now? Are they afraid that Joe will die in the building? And if so, why?
Also, they seem to be trying to blame this on his lawyer. His lawyer is Emmet Bondurant, one of the most respected attorneys around. I think they realize what they’ve stepped in, did not anticipate this public heat and now are stepping in it worse with their spin. At least it will be much harder to run him out now that they’re putting out public statements like this.
Our society dictate that natural births and deaths must take place hidden in an institution. Our homes are only for watching TV, eating and sleeping during our breaks from driving around and consuming things.
Thanks for sharing, Deanne. It’s puzzling though–is it really true that Joe’s lawyers haven’t shared the new “contract”? And what does “as long as he is able” mean? Who is to decide? What’s the criteria for judging that?
There is something in all this that does not make sense. Why is the Fox risking all this bad publicity? Their stated concerns in no way equal the steps they have taken.
Fox spin leaves me cold. Mr. Patten’s apartment is perfectly suitable to have 24/7 live-in care should he ever need that assistance, and I assume he would pay for his own care. So, what IS the point of Fox’s drive to force him out? So what if he dies in the theatre building some day in the future? Everybody has to die somewhere, and I suspect he would prefer to die in his own home, just like most people would. How would that event, if it ever were to come to that, blemish the theatre’s public relations and status? It would bode much better than forcing him to move out against his wishes and against public opinion of Fox’s management stance. It is hard to believe Fox Theatre management is being so creepy. Ugh!
A wild supposition….perhaps the Fox wants to rent out that apartment for special shows and events. Much like Disney World rents out the apartment that Walt Disney built for himself in Sleeping Beauty’s castle.
Evict the tenant, remodel into an Egyptian theme decor, and pull down massive rent.
Too wild a theory?
AMB – not too wild a theory, what you outline. “Follow the money” — isn’t that the rule?
The Fox board probably thinks the apartment will be haunted by Joe’s ghost if he dies there, and that will make it more difficult to rent out for events.
Another “F” in thinking then! Southern folks would pay extra for a ghost!
But the Fox is mostly interested in Broadway and Hollywood productions, non-southern touring acts, Celtic Woman and the fake Beatles. When’s the last time they were known for hosting southern events? Probably not since Lynyrd Skynyrd played there in the ’70s.
Their audiences are Southern!
Sure wish all the “Phantom Of The Opera” casts- touring & Broadway- would weigh in! Oh the great headlines that’d make!
I don’t know–I get the impression that the Fox and its staff have been called on to help him out due to health issues. Maybe he doesn’t want to have live-in help and they’re trying to make it clear that while he’s welcome to stay, employees at the Fox can’t stop what they’re doing whenever he has a problem?
I can’t imagine they’d make that much money doing something else with the space.
Is there any sort of list of the “right” people to contact with displeasure over this? I poked around this Fox website a bit earlier but there wasn’t much in the way of contact info. Someone mentioned a board and contacting sponsors. Seems like some here may have an inside scoop on the situation. Gotta love folks who have absolutely no shame in bullying senior citizens.
The phrase “bullying senior citizens” seems particularly apt to me, in this case.
Try [email protected] . He’s the Fox’s GM.
Calls to their regular perfoming groups (link above) & sponsors would help too.
i love how they keep adding “as long as he is able”, whereas they are the ones allegedly according to the lease to determine if he is able, not his doctor.
Before we all pile onto the Fox Theatre, let’s pause.
This story makes the Fox sound incredibly bad, and a theatre knows about public relations.
Perhaps they know something about this situation that the rest of us don’t know. Perhaps they ARE looking out for this gentleman’s best interests. It COULD be that this man WOULD be better off living with someone with medical care.
The Fox probably cannot disclose certain information that relates to Joe’s privacy.
They COULD be the devils that they seem to be.
But my gut feeling is that nobody is heartless enough to evict an old man from his residence without some compelling reason.
The Fox should be concerned for Mr. Patten’s well being. Right now he seems to be functioning well for an elderly man who’s had medical issues. It just doesn’t seem to be what’s driving everybody’s actions. The paper trail barely disguises the contempt some Fox folks have for the situation.
http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/archive/00655/Patten-Fox_Theatre__655836a.pdf
If The Fox is sincere that he’s welcome to stay as long as he’s able – without having to rely on Fox staff- then there are steps they could take. Why not take on some interns who’d gladly assist Mr. Patten while also gaining theatrical experience? Why not make sure he has any needed senior safety upgrades? Why not give him a medical alert call system? Overnight building entry may be a main stumbling block, but there are solutions to avoid displacing him.
Oops. Accidentally cut in line…
That letter is truly, shockingly cold.
Diane — “nobody is heartless enough” – don’t bet on it. The man has family members who could set the facts straight as to his condition and his medical needs, plus his own doctor(s). He is not alone in this world. He is just a burr in the works at Fox, or so it seems.
Yeah, I don’t think the doctors ARE able to talk publicly about their patient, and how do you know he has family members?
Gladys, I don’t know about confidentiality of medical records when it comes to a contract between a theatre and a private party.
And you both could be right. But this is soooo lopsided, I’ve just got a hunch that there’s information that is not public.
His sister is shown with him and making comments in the news stories. A sister is “family”, right?
One of the letters from the Fox rep to Mr. Patten indicated that his current apartment space could be used for “sorely needed expansion” and also required information from his medical doctor to allow him to continue in residence. Since even mentioning future planned use for his apartment is such a gaffe, and since medical record confidentiality is well protected legally, I have to figure these people are not operating with the best advice from counsel, or from their PR folks, or am I missing something? Sorry Diane, it sounds like they’ve earned this one. And Emmet Bondurant has always enjoyed a stellar reputation, both as a respected attorney and a decent, reasonable person. It’s hard to imagine that he is be the party responsible for this being so out of control.
Why does this lease renegotiation remind me of treaties with Native Americans?
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
I spoke to a friend of Mr. Patten’s today- who in fact was to see him today- and he said he would pass along well wishes from the City of Decatur to Mr. Patten and let him know he has many well wishers here.
Thanks Nelliebelle1197 for passing that message to his friend. I’m quite sure Mr. Patten needs to know that public opinion is on his side, no matter what the outcome may be down the line.
Fox’s former FB page states that there is no such provision in “the new lease” concerning restricting visitors (including FAMILY) from visiting him in his apartment. They characterized that as “a blatant lie” meant to smear the Fox. Now, the AJC story reports that there is such a clause in “the new lease.” Let us see the complete lease, AJC, so that we can read it for ourselves and determine who the liar is.
Hey Chira- Did you mean to throw former in front of Fox at the top of your message? Fox is still updating their page.
Apparently, Facebook fans of Joe aren’t as civil as the DM posters. Their latest update is about banning people. Glad DM doesn’t ban. Don’t go getting any ideas there now…
I meant “former” in the sense of “previous”, not that Fox’s FB page is not still in existence. Yes, I read the comments there too and was glad to see them upholding Mr. Patten.
I’ll admit, I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here.
But, can you imagine how bad it would look if this man fell ill in his apartment and died because he couldn’t get out? Then the headlines would be that this cherished man was ignored by the Fox. He’s very old and has health issues, and lives in a multi-story building without access to an elevator.
Can’t anyone else imagine the potential harm to this man if something happened to him?
And I don’t know…is a theatre that has let a man live there for 30 years rent free, paying part of his utilities, really heartless?
I will concede that this whole thing makes the Fox look bad, very bad. But I think y’all can concede that maybe you all don’t know all of the pertinent facts in this case.
Diane-
I’ll concede I’m sure we don’t. Those are very legit concerns you’re pointing out. My thoughts on what might help with some of that are in the reply to your original comment. (I was tired & missed where to chime in.)
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, especially when it’s being filtered through the media. In that respect I agree with Diane, theoretically. In this instance, however, I agree with others that the Fox’s PR bumbling merely served to reveal their heavy-handedness in a challenging situation, so they deserve every rotten tomato thrown their way.
Aging is complicated and difficult for everybody involved. It can be extremely difficult for the aging person to confront their own growing impairment. Speaking from experience, it can be really hard for their loved ones, too. You want the person to be able to stay independent and healthy as long as possible. Both mental and physical deterioration can be gradual and insidious, though, and it can be very difficult to determine whether a particular incident is an anomaly or the beginning of a new phase. You want to support them in every way possible to maintain the status quo, as opposed to dragging them against their will before they are ready to make a change–either moving out of their home to a place where assistance and care are available, or bringing in assistance, which can feel equally disruptive and disheartening to the care recipient. What I’m trying to say is that Mr. Patten may need more assistance than he or his sister is prepared to admit to themselves or anybody else.
That being said, it’s inconceivable that the Fox couldn’t find ways to accommodate his changing needs graciously and quietly, if they wanted to. It shouldn’t matter at all if the original lease didn’t take into account how circumstances might alter as Mr. Patten aged. It’s not like he changed the rules on purpose. He shouldn’t be penalized just because he hasn’t died yet!
It’s hard to believe that apartment wouldn’t be some kind of money-maker if Fox could only get their hands on it. Well, there are millions of people all over the world who would be financially better off if their elders would just die, already. That doesn’t mean taking advantage of them is the right thing to do.
I hope some journalist gets on the bigger-issue horse of How We Treat The Aging and rides it around and around and around.
This is an excellent point–that many, many, many elderly in this country, from all backgrounds and income levels, are at risk for degrading and miserable ends to their lives. We have neither a culture nor safety net that routinely provides comfort and dignity routinely to the elderly. I don’t believe it’s intentional but an issue that just hasn’t been fully addressed in our rapidly changing society and world. No amount of planning, saving, and foresight can address the unpredictable aspects of aging—family that leave or die, chronic conditions, inflation, recession, changes in medical reimbursement, etc. Many hard-working folks end up spending a lifetime’s worth of savings on just a few months in some kind of medical care and then get relegated to substandard assisted living, dying lonely and sick.
My mantra re aging, at least for now, is: Long-term care insurance. Continuing care communities are one of the few options for the very elderly that seem palatable but they all require either great wealth or long-term care insurance.
Some clarification, please. Does the Fox Theatre have any elevators to upper levels of the building? I somehow think I remember using one there. If they do not have elevators, how are they exempt from ADA regulations? Also, is there a security system and personnel in place at the theatre 24/7? If not, there should be — not just for Joe’s sake, but for the safety of the building and its contents. The basic issue here — how Fox Theatre is treating Mr. Patten like a piece of garbage — is really rankling to me. I hope to see a “happy ending” to this story, but am not optimistic at this point.
There are definitely elevators there (I rode on one as recently as a few weeks ago when we went to see Butch & Sundance) manned by operators during shows. I have no idea whether these elevators have access to the floor containing Mr. Patten’s apartment.
To get an idea of the Fox administration’s intentions just review the documents posted by Johnny Ego on FFAF at this link:
http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/archive/00655/Patten-Fox_Theatre__655836a.pdf
I have to wonder if anyone reviews or approves Woody White’s documents before they’re sent.
Documents, including the “new” lease agreement:
http://intownwriter.wordpress.com/fact-or-fox-fiction/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Joe-The-Phantom-of-The-Fox-Theatre/139537109420792 JOIN US. Family members and friends, relatives of existing board members, supporters past and present gather to exchange information and offer support.
If you have not already had a chance please come visit this FB page. Also if you would like to join our email group please email [email protected]
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Joe-The-Phantom-of-The-Fox-Theatre/139537109420792?v=wall&ref=notif
Daniel Graham
“
Joe is fully capable, elderly man. He wants to stay in his home of more than 30 years, but Atlanta Landmarks is making unreasonable changes to the terms. Corporate greed & indignity of a senior citizen. Ugly behavior!
Join us for our protest march on Monday, Sept. 13 at 5:00 pm, in front of the Fox. Bring your handmade signs, voices, enthusiasm, and friends with you.
Tell Edward “Woody” White to stop this campaign of hatred!