💰 Fletcher McCusker's Million-Dollar Mistake: The Live Nation Debacle

Why Rio Nuevo's chairman might be the punchline to his own joke

Jun 12, 2025

😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾

🌵🏙️ Tucson has a special group called Rio Nuevo that uses tax money 💸 to help build new things downtown 🌆. They thought they were doing a great job 👍, but then they made a deal to kick out a popular local brewery 🍺 so a big comedy company 🎭 could move in instead.

People got really upset 😡 because they loved the brewery ❤️ and nobody asked them what they thought 🤷‍♂️.

Then, after all the fighting 🥊 and hurt feelings 💔, the comedy company decided not to come to Tucson ❌🏙️ because they couldn't agree on how much rent to pay 💸.

So now everyone's mad 😤, the brewery is still confused 🤷‍♀️ about their future, and the people who made the decision are trying to figure out how they messed up so badly 🤔. It's like when someone breaks your favorite toy 🧸💔 to make room for a new one, but then the new toy never arrives 🚫 and your old toy is still broken 😢.

🗝️ Takeaways

🎭 Rio Nuevo prioritized a Live Nation comedy club over beloved local businesses like Borderlands Brewing, then watched the corporate deal collapse over lease negotiations
💸 Fletcher McCusker's development authority operates with $4.5M annually in tax increment financing but minimal community oversight or democratic accountability
🏪 Local businesses create authentic community culture that attracts corporate investment, yet get displacement notices while corporations receive taxpayer subsidies
🗳️ The controversy reveals fundamental problems with appointed authorities making decisions behind closed doors without meaningful community input
📈 Tax increment financing creates perverse incentives that prioritize short-term revenue generation over long-term community stability and cultural preservation
⚖️ Community resistance forced Rio Nuevo to acknowledge process failures, showing that grassroots pressure can produce change from unaccountable authorities
🌵 The pattern reflects broader gentrification trends across the Southwest, where "revitalization" often means displacement of working-class communities of color

Give a gift subscription

Rio Nuevo's Comedy of Errors: When Corporate Dreams Collide with Community Reality

By Three Sonorans

In the sun-scorched landscape of Tucson's downtown development scene, we've just witnessed a masterclass in how NOT to do community engagement—courtesy of Rio Nuevo's botched Live Nation comedy club deal, which has left more people crying than laughing.

What started as Fletcher McCusker's grand vision to bring corporate entertainment to the corazón of our city has devolved into a cautionary tale about what happens when appointed technocrats prioritize profit margins over la gente who actually built the community they're so eager to "revitalize."

The saga reads like a dark comedy written by someone who's never actually lived in a neighborhood: wealthy development authority decides beloved local brewery must make way for corporate chain, community erupts in outrage, corporate deal falls through anyway, and now everyone's left standing in the rubble wondering what the hell just happened.

¿En serio?

This is what passes for "strategic planning" in the era of disaster capitalism?

The Setup: When Dreams of Corporate Glory Meet Reality

Picture this: It's spring 2025, and Fletcher McCusker—Rio Nuevo's longtime board chair and apparent sultan of sales tax redistribution—is feeling pretty good about his track record.

For over a decade, he has been the architect of downtown Tucson's transformation, wielding Tax Increment Financing (TIF) dollars like a neoliberal magician. The numbers look good on paper: downtown's tax base has doubled to $18 million annually, private investment has poured in, and the accolades continue to come from the kind of urban planning publications that often mistake gentrification for genuine improvement.

Then comes the opportunity that probably had McCusker salivating like a venture capitalist at a startup pitch: Live Nation, the corporate entertainment behemoth, wants to open a Punch Line Comedy Club at 119 E. Toole Ave.

The projected numbers are intoxicating—$15 million in annual revenue, generating almost $1 million in sales tax, meaning Rio Nuevo would pocket about half a million dollars annually from the deal. It's the kind of corporate welfare arrangement that makes development authority board members break out in excited sweats.

There's just one tiny problem: the space is currently occupied by Borderlands Brewing and Playformance, two local businesses that have been part of downtown's authentic culture for years.

But hey, when you're dealing with the kind of transformative vision that McCusker and his board specialize in, such details are merely obstáculos to be overcome, not communities to be considered.

The Local Businesses: More Than Just Collateral Damage

Let's talk about what was actually at stake here, because in all the breathless coverage of projected revenue streams and corporate partnerships, the human cost of this deal got buried faster than archaeological evidence at a strip mall construction site.

Borderlands Brewing wasn't just some random tenant taking up valuable real estate—they were part of the cultural ecosystem that made downtown Tucson worth visiting in the first place. For years, they'd been serving craft beer and creating community gathering spaces, the kind of authentic local experience that urban planners always claim to want but consistently sacrifice on the altar of corporate convenience.

Playformance, meanwhile, provided children's programming and family-friendly activities—you know, the kind of diverse, inclusive programming that actually builds sustainable communities rather than just extracting wealth from them.

But according to McCusker's assessment, these businesses were expendable because "they're behind in their rent" and "basically bankrupt". The casual dismissal is breathtaking in its arrogance—local businesses struggling with rent during a pandemic get written off as failures, while multinational corporations get red-carpet treatment and taxpayer subsidies.

¿Qué clase de lógica es esta? The businesses that survived the economic hellscape of the last few years without massive corporate backing are "failures," but the corporation that needs public subsidies to make their numbers work is somehow the model of entrepreneurial success?

The Community Backlash: When La Gente Fight Back

What happened next should have been predictable to anyone who's ever lived in an actual community rather than just managing one from a boardroom. The announcement of the Live Nation deal triggered immediate and intense backlash from local residents, business owners, and anyone who understood that corporate entertainment franchises can't replace authentic community culture.

Borderlands Brewing released a statement expressing their shock at being "blindsided" by the decision. They hadn't been consulted, hadn't been given an opportunity to collaborate or find alternative arrangements—they'd simply been informed that their decade of community building was no longer profitable enough to justify their continued existence in the space.

The community response was swift and fierce. Social media erupted with criticism of the deal, Rio Nuevo board meetings became contentious affairs, and the backlash became so intense that the development authority actually received threats of violence—forcing them to close their offices and move meetings online.

Now, we absolutely don't condone threats of violence, but let's be clear about what was happening here: when you systematically exclude people from decisions that affect their livelihoods and communities, when you operate in secrecy and then act surprised that people are angry about backroom deals, you're creating the conditions for exactly this kind of explosive community response.

McCusker's reaction to the backlash was telling: "You know, we're not used to being hated. For the last 12 years, most of the work we've done is celebrated". Translation: "We're used to operating without meaningful community input, and we're genuinely surprised that people have opinions about how their tax money gets spent."

The Deal Falls Apart: Corporate Promises Meet Financial Reality

Fast-forward to June 10th of this week.

Here's where the story takes a turn from tragic to absolutely farcical. After all the community trauma, all the displacement threats, all the corporate cheerleading and technocratic hand-waving, the Live Nation deal collapsed over—wait for it—lease economics.

That's right: the same corporate entity that was supposed to bring prosperity and progress to downtown Tucson couldn't make their own numbers work when it came time to actually sign a lease.

The deal that was supposed to generate half a million dollars annually for Rio Nuevo died because Live Nation couldn't reach terms with the property owner.

So let's recap the genius of this whole operation: Rio Nuevo was willing to displace beloved local businesses for a corporate partner that couldn't even successfully negotiate a lease. They were ready to sacrifice community relationships and cultural authenticity for a deal that fell apart at the first sign of financial complexity.

¡Qué brillante estrategia!

Burn bridges with the community for a corporate partnership that evaporates the moment it encounters basic real estate economics.

The Real McCusker Record: Gentrification's Greatest Hits

Sure, McCusker can point to shiny new buildings and rising property values as evidence of his "success." But whose success are we talking about here?

The longtime Tucson residents who've been priced out of their own neighborhoods?
The local businesses that couldn't compete with subsidized corporate chains?
The communities of color that have been systematically displaced by his vision of "progress"?

McCusker's track record appears impressive to those seeking trendy downtown amenities, whether as a property developer, corporate chain executive, or wealthy newcomer.

It looks a lot less impressive if you're a working-class Tucsonense who's watched your community get transformed into a playground for people who can afford $15 craft cocktails and $3,000-a-month loft apartments.

The "$1 billion in private investment" that gets thrown around as proof of Rio Nuevo's success? That's mostly been investment in luxury housing, upscale restaurants, and entertainment venues designed for tourists and affluent transplants.

How Maynard’s and their “Foie-Voacado Toast appetizer made with foie gras ganache and avocado mousse” doing, BTW?

Meanwhile, affordable housing has disappeared, local businesses have been priced out, and the cultural institutions that gave downtown its authentic character have been replaced by the kind of generic "revitalization" you can find in any gentrifying city in America.

Critics have been pointing this out for years: that Rio Nuevo's model prioritizes corporate profits over community needs, that it operates with minimal transparency and accountability, and that McCusker himself has become too comfortable wielding public power without meaningful democratic oversight.

The Live Nation debacle just pulled the curtain back on what community organizers and displaced residents have been saying all along: Rio Nuevo doesn't serve the community - it serves the development industry that McCusker and his board are part of.

So yeah, you're absolutely right to be skeptical of any narrative that treats McCusker as some visionary leader. The man has been presiding over textbook gentrification for over a decade, and the only reason it took this long for the broader community to notice is that the benefits were flowing to people with enough privilege to remain quiet about the costs.

The Broader Pattern: Gentrification by Any Other Name

This isn't just about one failed deal or one tone-deaf development authority. The Live Nation debacle is a perfect microcosm of how gentrification operates in the 21st century—dressed up in the language of "revitalization" and "economic development" but ultimately serving to extract wealth from communities and concentrate it in the hands of corporate interests and their political allies.

Rio Nuevo's own geographic boundaries reveal the distorted priorities at work here. McCusker admits the district was "gerrymandered" to capture both malls along Broadway, "because that's where the revenue base was."

The result, in his words, is "a dog bone, basically. Far west side, downtown, narrow along Broadway, sucks up both malls because of the sales tax."

Nothing says "community-centered development" quite like a district map designed to maximize sales tax capture rather than serve coherent neighborhood needs. The whole enterprise is structured around extracting revenue from shopping centers and redirecting it to downtown development—a process that treats communities as resource extraction sites rather than places where people live and work.

The studies referenced in our research show that this pattern is consistent across Tucson: revitalization efforts consistently lead to displacement of existing residents and businesses, rising rents, and the gradual transformation of neighborhoods to serve wealthier, whiter demographics.

What gets called "improvement" is often just the systematic replacement of working-class communities of color with amenities designed for affluent newcomers.

Democracy Deficit: The Problem with Appointed Authority

One of the most infuriating aspects of this entire saga is how it highlights the fundamental democratic deficit in Tucson's development process. Rio Nuevo operates as an appointed board with enormous power over public resources but minimal accountability to the communities most affected by their decisions.

McCusker has been board chair since 2012—over a decade of wielding influence over millions of dollars in public money without ever facing a competitive election. The other board members are similarly appointed, creating a structure that insulates decision-makers from direct democratic accountability while granting them considerable power to shape the community's future.

This isn't how democracy is supposed to work, ¿verdad? When public officials can make decisions that affect thousands of people without ever having to face those people in an election, you don't have public service—you have oligarchy with better branding.

The Live Nation controversy exposes the inevitable result of this structure: officials who operate in isolation from the communities they claim to serve, who are genuinely surprised when their decisions generate opposition, and who treat democratic input as a communication problem rather than a fundamental right.

The Voices of Resistance: Community Leaders Fight Back

While McCusker and Rio Nuevo were busy playing corporate matchmaker, authentic community voices were trying to inject some reality into the conversation. Small business owners like Mellow Dawn Lund from Mast boutique have been speaking out about the systemic exclusion of existing businesses from development decisions.

Lund's critique cuts to the heart of the issue: local businesses create the authentic community atmosphere that makes areas attractive to corporate investment, but when the corporations show up with their taxpayer-subsidized deals, the locals get displacement notices instead of partnership offers.

"If there were no activity there, if there weren't us, if we weren't here, they wouldn't want to be here," Lund pointed out with devastating logic. Small businesses build the cultural ecosystem, but corporate chains get the public subsidies.

Her concept of "strategic equity" challenges the fundamental assumptions of Rio Nuevo's approach: "Because you're in a position of great power, how are you wielding it? Are you strategically thinking about how to make that equitable?"

These are the questions that should be at the center of every development decision, but they're precisely the questions that appointed authorities like Rio Nuevo are structured to avoid. When your mandate is to maximize tax revenue generation rather than serve community needs, equity becomes an afterthought at best.

The Editorial Wars: Media Coverage and Public Discourse

The controversy has also played out in the pages of local media, with former Tucson Citizen editor Michael Chihak writing an opinion piece critical of Rio Nuevo's approach, followed by what community members described as a condescending response from McCusker.

While the specific details of this editorial exchange aren't fully available, the community reaction to McCusker's response is telling. According to Lund, McCusker's reply was "not very cozy" and came across as "condescending"—particularly his suggestion that the community simply isn't "used to being criticized."

¡Por favor! Nothing quite says "public servant" like lecturing the public about how they're not sophisticated enough to understand why your decisions are actually good for them.

This kind of paternalistic response is typical of appointed officials who've lost touch with the basic principles of democratic accountability. When your instinct is to educate critics rather than listen to them, you've already revealed that you see yourself as above the community rather than accountable to it.

The Financial Shell Game: How TIF Financing Works

To understand why this debacle happened, you need to understand the financial incentives that drive Rio Nuevo's decision-making. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a complex mechanism that captures increases in tax revenue above a baseline level and redirects that money to fund development projects in a designated district.

In Rio Nuevo's case, they capture half of the sales tax generated above the 1999 baseline, which was about $9 million. With the tax base now at $18 million annually, Rio Nuevo has nearly $4.5 million in annual revenue to play with. It's a self-perpetuating cycle: using public money to subsidize development generates more tax revenue, which in turn provides more public money to subsidize further development.

On paper, it sounds like a win-win: public investment leverages private development, tax base grows, everyone benefits. In practice, it creates perverse incentives that prioritize short-term revenue generation over long-term community stability.

The Live Nation deal was attractive to Rio Nuevo precisely because it promised significant sales tax generation—$15 million in annual revenue would have generated almost $1 million in sales tax, resulting in approximately $500,000 annually for Rio Nuevo's coffers. From a purely financial perspective, displacing local businesses that generate less tax revenue makes perfect sense.

But this logic treats communities as revenue optimization problems rather than places where people live and work. It reduces the complex cultural and social value of local businesses to simple tax generation calculations, and it creates systematic bias toward large corporate operations that may have no real commitment to the community beyond their lease agreements.

Trump Era Parallels: Authoritarianism Comes Home

What's happening in Tucson isn't happening in isolation—it's part of a broader pattern of democratic erosion that's been accelerating throughout the Trump era and beyond. The same authoritarian tendencies that we see in national politics are playing out at the local level, where appointed authorities operate with minimal oversight and treat community input as an inconvenience to be managed.

McCusker's surprise at community opposition, his dismissal of local businesses as "bankrupt," his casual admission that Rio Nuevo operates in executive session before emerging to rubber-stamp decisions—all of this reflects the same contempt for democratic processes that characterizes authoritarian governance at every level.

The parallel is particularly stark when you consider how development authorities like Rio Nuevo function as a form of economic authoritarianism: concentrated power, minimal accountability, decisions made behind closed doors, and systematic exclusion of the people most affected by those decisions.

Es la misma pinche cosa, just with better branding and legal cover.

Community Resistance and Organizing: The Path Forward

Despite the frustration and anger generated by this controversy, there are genuine reasons for hope. The intensity of community response to the Live Nation deal demonstrates that people are paying attention, that they care about their neighborhoods, and that they're willing to fight for authentic community control over development decisions.

The fact that the controversy forced Rio Nuevo to acknowledge process problems and promise reforms shows that pressure from below can produce changes from above. McCusker's admission that "we screwed up" might be minimal, but it's more accountability than we usually see from appointed authorities.

More importantly, the controversy has sparked broader conversations about how development should work, who should be included in decision-making, and what kind of community Tucson wants to build. These conversations are happening in community meetings, social media discussions, and editorial pages—the kind of public discourse that's essential for democratic governance.

Local business owners like Lund are providing thoughtful alternatives to the corporate welfare model, emphasizing the importance of supporting existing entrepreneurs and cultural creators rather than just chasing the biggest possible deals.

Learning from Indigenous Wisdom: Buen Vivir vs. Corporate Extraction

As we think about alternatives to the extractive development model that Rio Nuevo represents, it's worth considering Indigenous concepts of buen vivir—living well in harmony with community and environment rather than simply maximizing economic growth.

Traditional Indigenous approaches to land use and community development prioritize sustainability, equity, and cultural preservation over short-term profit maximization.

These aren't just philosophical concepts—they're practical frameworks for making decisions that consider the long-term wellbeing of all community members rather than just the financial interests of the most powerful.

Applied to urban development, buen vivir would mean prioritizing the needs of existing community members, preserving cultural spaces and affordable housing, and making decisions through inclusive processes that give everyone a voice in shaping their neighborhood's future.

It would mean asking questions like:

How does this development serve the people who already live here?
How does it preserve and strengthen cultural identity?
How does it create opportunities for local entrepreneurs and workers?
How does it contribute to community resilience and self-determination?

These are exactly the questions that Rio Nuevo's current structure is designed to avoid. Still, they're the questions that any genuinely democratic development process would put at the center of every decision.

The Bigger Picture: Development Justice & Community Control

The Rio Nuevo controversy is ultimately about much more than one failed corporate deal—it's about fundamental questions of power, democracy, and who gets to shape the future of our communities.

The current model of appointed development authorities operating with minimal oversight and maximum corporate welfare represents everything wrong with neoliberal governance.

Real development justice would mean community control over development decisions, transparent processes that prioritize the needs of existing residents and businesses, and economic development that builds wealth within communities rather than extracting it for corporate shareholders.

It would mean replacing appointed authorities with elected representatives, requiring meaningful community benefit agreements for any public subsidies, and prioritizing affordable housing and local business development over corporate recruitment.

Most importantly, it would mean recognizing that communities are more than just revenue-generating sites—they're places where people build lives, create culture, and form the relationships that make democracy possible.

What You Can Do: Concrete Steps for Change

This isn't just about venting frustration—it's about building the power necessary to create real change. Here are concrete ways to get involved:

Attend Public Meetings: Show up to Rio Nuevo board meetings, city council sessions, and development authority hearings. Your physical presence matters, and public officials notice when their audiences grow beyond the usual suspects.

Support Local Businesses: Your spending decisions are political choices. Support businesses like Borderlands Brewing and Mast boutique that are building authentic community rather than extracting wealth from it.
Demand Transparency: Request public records about development deals. Ask for detailed financial breakdowns of public subsidies. Push for clear criteria on funding decisions. Make them explain their priorities in public.
Connect with Existing Networks: Find the community organizations, business associations, and neighborhood groups that are already doing this work. Join them, support them, learn from them.
Run for Office: Local elections have low turnout and enormous impact. If you're frustrated with appointed authorities making decisions without community input, consider running for city council or county board positions where you can provide democratic oversight.
Register and Vote: Every election matters, but local elections often matter most for these kinds of issues. Register, vote, and help others do the same.

Why This Matters: The Stakes Are Higher Than You Think

Some people might read this and think, "It's just one comedy club deal that fell through—why make such a big deal about it?" But that misses the broader significance of what happened here.

This controversy reveals the systematic exclusion of working-class communities from decisions about their own neighborhoods. It exposes the bias toward corporate interests in our economic development policies. It demonstrates the democratic deficit in how public resources are allocated.

Most importantly, it shows how gentrification and displacement operate through seemingly neutral processes like "economic development" and "revitalization." The violence isn't dramatic—it's bureaucratic.

The displacement happens through lease negotiations and zoning decisions rather than bulldozers and police raids.

But the result is the same: working-class communities, particularly communities of color, get pushed out to make room for amenities designed for wealthier, whiter demographics. The cultural institutions that give neighborhoods their identity get replaced by corporate chains that could exist anywhere.

This is happening in cities across the country, and it's accelerating as housing costs rise and corporate consolidation increases. What happened in Tucson is a preview of what's coming to your community if we don't start demanding better.

Media Accountability: Why Independent Journalism Matters

Stories like this often go unreported by mainstream media outlets, which rely on development interests for advertising revenue. The complexity of TIF financing, the long-term impacts of displacement, the systematic exclusion of community voices—these aren't the kind of stories that generate clicks or satisfy corporate sponsors.

That's why independent journalism is so crucial. Publications like Three Sonorans can ask the hard questions, follow the money, and center the voices of people who are usually excluded from these conversations.

But independent journalism requires independent funding. Corporate media won't tell you the truth about corporate welfare because they're part of the same system that benefits from it. Community-funded media can tell these stories because we're accountable to readers, not advertisers.

Consider supporting Three Sonorans Substack to keep this kind of reporting and analysis coming. Every subscription helps ensure we can continue following these stories, asking uncomfortable questions, and providing the kind of analysis that helps you understand not just what's happening, but why it matters and what you can do about it.

Get 25% off for 1 year

A Note of Hope: Sí Se Puede

Despite all the frustration and anger in this story, there's genuine reason for hope. The community response to the Live Nation deal shows that people are paying attention, that they care about their neighborhoods, and that they're willing to fight for authentic community control over development decisions.

More importantly, the controversy has sparked broader discussions about how development should be implemented and who should be involved in decision-making. These conversations are taking place in coffee shops, community meetings, on social media, and in editorial pages—the kind of public discourse that's essential for democratic governance.

Change is possible, but it requires sustained engagement from people who care about their communities. It requires showing up to meetings, supporting local businesses, demanding transparency, and holding public officials accountable for their decisions.

Most of all, it requires believing that another way is possible—that we can create development processes that serve existing communities rather than displacing them, that prioritize cultural preservation and affordable housing over corporate profits, and that include everyone in decisions about their neighborhood's future.

Otro mundo es posible, but only if we organize to create it.

The microphone is in our hands—we just need to decide whether to speak up or stay silent. And trust me, staying silent has never made anything better for working people.

Three Sonorans is an independent media project covering politics, culture, and social justice issues in the borderlands of Southern Arizona. We're funded by readers like you, not corporate advertisers, which means we can tell the stories that matter most to working communities. Subscribe to our Substack to stay informed and support independent journalism in the Southwest.

Discussion Questions:

What experiences have you had with development authorities or corporate development in your community? How might we restructure these public-private partnerships to be more inclusive and equitable?

Do you think tax increment financing districts like Rio Nuevo serve the public interest, or do they primarily benefit developers and corporations? What alternative models for community development should we be exploring?