I said it before, but I think Scott states it succinctly:
Recommendation: The NEA ought to confine itself to providing seed money for theatres in underserved communities.
My hunch is that when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, Scott and I would disagree on what constitutes "underserved communities" in some cases but not in others, even with that disagreement at times it's still a good framework.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with Scott that it should limit itself to only seed money. There may be some underserved communities that may require continuing support to remain served. At the very least, such an organization should be able to make a strong case as to why they couldn't be self-sufficient after 5 years, rather than just assuming that grant money is perpetual money.
