Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Public Arts Scam

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Public Arts Scam   2/18/2009, 5:10 pm

I just saw on TV that in one FL county there is a statue at the courthouse that cost $400,000. Why did they pay so much? Because there's a county law that all public buildings cost would have a set aside of 1% for "the arts."

IOW they needed to spend $400k to comply with the arts set aside law. Shocked

That is ridiculous!
Back to top Go down
sparks



Posts : 2197

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/19/2009, 6:03 am

Mirage wrote:
I just saw on TV that in one FL county there is a statue at the courthouse that cost $400,000. Why did they pay so much? Because there's a county law that all public buildings cost would have a set aside of 1% for "the arts."

IOW they needed to spend $400k to comply with the arts set aside law. Shocked

That is ridiculous!
It may be ridiculous in your opinion, but there are people who appreciate the arts and feel that public artwork improves their quality of life. Munster has had a law on their books for almost 10 years now mandating businesses erect public art. My favorite piece is the bronze bech in front of the Pepsi building.

MUNSTER -- While many towns across the state rely on tax breaks to help attract

new business ventures or encourage existing businesses to expand or improve

their facilities -- often because of the new jobs created and the property tax

dollars raised -- Munster's tax abatement policy seeks to enhance life for the

town's residents in a novel way: through the creation of public works of art.

While business owners receiving tax breaks in Munster have been required to

contribute 1 percent of the total cost of their construction projects toward

the creation of a public work of art for about two years now, town officials

are fine-tuning the process as the first works created under the policy near

completion.
http://nwi.com/articles/2000/05/09/export404299.txt
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/19/2009, 11:23 am

It may be ridiculous in your opinion, but there are people who appreciate the arts and feel that public artwork improves their quality of life.

I have no problem with YOU privately donating such an art object to the public. But "I" object to being forced to buy a stupid $400k statue. No reason in the world a taxpayer should be forced to pay for art. None!
Back to top Go down
Robin Banks

avatar

Posts : 1545

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/19/2009, 11:27 am

Maybe we can force children to create artwork as volunteers.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/19/2009, 11:40 am

Mirage wrote:
I just saw on TV that in one FL county there is a statue at the courthouse that cost $400,000. Why did they pay so much? Because there's a county law that all public buildings cost would have a set aside of 1% for "the arts."

IOW they needed to spend $400k to comply with the arts set aside law. Shocked

That is ridiculous!

Thats not as bad all the taxpayer money that was spent to build a grocery store that only stayed in business a couple of months tops. Where more merchandise left the store via employee's than was bought by the public
Back to top Go down
sparks



Posts : 2197

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/20/2009, 7:41 pm

Mirage wrote:
It may be ridiculous in your opinion, but there are people who appreciate the arts and feel that public artwork improves their quality of life.

I have no problem with YOU privately donating such an art object to the public. But "I" object to being forced to buy a stupid $400k statue. No reason in the world a taxpayer should be forced to pay for art. None!
Oh Really? Just because you don't want to spend money on art doesn't mean that the arts aren't a valuable
economic engine that provides jobs and tax revenue. The federal government gives the NEA 1.4 billion dollars a year to support the arts. I would much rather the Feds spend money on supporting American artists instead of funding wars for oil.


http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/advocacy/aad_04_handbook/issuebriefs_neaneh.pdf
The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community in the country. The nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion annually in economic activity, supports 4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs and returns $10.5 billion to the federal government in income taxes. Measured against direct federal cultural spending of about $1.4 billion, that’s a return of nearly eight to one
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/20/2009, 9:58 pm

if the cities want art, let someone donate it to them, not be required to to pay for it

Sparks, you seem to like paying more in taxes, care to pay my 2009 Lake County property taxes as well, since its only a little bit of money in your view?
Back to top Go down
BigWhiteGuy

avatar

Posts : 689

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/21/2009, 8:06 am

sparks wrote:
Oh Really? Just because you don't want to spend money on art doesn't mean that the arts aren't a valuable
economic engine that provides jobs and tax revenue. The federal government gives the NEA 1.4 billion dollars a year to support the arts. I would much rather the Feds spend money on supporting American artists instead of funding wars for oil.
So, how many jobs do you think the Picasso in the Daley Center has brought in? How much revenue? I wouldn't pay a dime's admission to see it...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/21/2009, 9:51 am

I would rather the Government spend $1.4 billion on road salt for communities who ran out this winter, than to spend it on art

Or how about spending the $1.4 billion on planting new trees to replace what has been tore down in this area recently to make way for new subdivisions

Or how about spending $1.4 billion to build clean energy sources? That will go much farther than a statue
Back to top Go down
BigWhiteGuy

avatar

Posts : 689

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/21/2009, 11:34 am

mike3775 wrote:
I would rather the Government spend $1.4 billion on road salt for communities who ran out this winter, than to spend it on art

Or how about spending the $1.4 billion on planting new trees to replace what has been tore down in this area recently to make way for new subdivisions

Or how about spending $1.4 billion to build clean energy sources? That will go much farther than a statue
Or, and it is a BIG OR, how about $1.4 billion on the Little Calumet Levee?
Back to top Go down
UrRight



Posts : 3993

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/21/2009, 6:51 pm

Don't you guys know by now we don't spend money on anything but something to look at, that takes gas, and no one has the money to fly by and shoot it?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 1:31 am

sparks wrote:
Mirage wrote:
It may be ridiculous in your opinion, but there are people who appreciate the arts and feel that public artwork improves their quality of life.

I have no problem with YOU privately donating such an art object to the public. But "I" object to being forced to buy a stupid $400k statue. No reason in the world a taxpayer should be forced to pay for art. None!
Oh Really? Just because you don't want to spend money on art doesn't mean that the arts aren't a valuable
economic engine that provides jobs and tax revenue. The federal government gives the NEA 1.4 billion dollars a year to support the arts. I would much rather the Feds spend money on supporting American artists instead of funding wars for oil.


http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/advocacy/aad_04_handbook/issuebriefs_neaneh.pdf
The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community in the country. The nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion annually in economic activity, supports 4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs and returns $10.5 billion to the federal government in income taxes. Measured against direct federal cultural spending of about $1.4 billion, that’s a return of nearly eight to one

I do not support the Federal spending of $1.4 bil but besides that my bigger beef is in the greater amount of money being mandated by local governments on overly expensive art such as $400k for a statue just to comply with a set aside requirement. That's plumb stupid!

I have no problem with private endowments and do regret that Congress has made it less advantageous for corporations to be philanthropic. But if the nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion why is it that for some reason only the US taxpayer can come up with the $1.4 bil to fund it?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 6:14 am

Mirage wrote:
sparks wrote:
Mirage wrote:
It may be ridiculous in your opinion, but there are people who appreciate the arts and feel that public artwork improves their quality of life.

I have no problem with YOU privately donating such an art object to the public. But "I" object to being forced to buy a stupid $400k statue. No reason in the world a taxpayer should be forced to pay for art. None!
Oh Really? Just because you don't want to spend money on art doesn't mean that the arts aren't a valuable
economic engine that provides jobs and tax revenue. The federal government gives the NEA 1.4 billion dollars a year to support the arts. I would much rather the Feds spend money on supporting American artists instead of funding wars for oil.


http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/advocacy/aad_04_handbook/issuebriefs_neaneh.pdf
The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community in the country. The nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion annually in economic activity, supports 4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs and returns $10.5 billion to the federal government in income taxes. Measured against direct federal cultural spending of about $1.4 billion, that’s a return of nearly eight to one

I do not support the Federal spending of $1.4 bil but besides that my bigger beef is in the greater amount of money being mandated by local governments on overly expensive art such as $400k for a statue just to comply with a set aside requirement. That's plumb stupid!

I have no problem with private endowments and do regret that Congress has made it less advantageous for corporations to be philanthropic. But if the nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion why is it that for some reason only the US taxpayer can come up with the $1.4 bil to fund it?

Gonna take a guess a this one- someone's pork project?? pig
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 11:14 am

Yeah, well first of all, IMHO, this is an exceptional work of art. It's the kind of piece that you'd expect to find in my favorite town. (which is Chicago, of course)

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/03/09/Hillsborough/Judging_the_look_of_L.shtml



It appears that this statue was put in place a couple of years ago. I'm a bit confused as to why this is such a hot issue two years later. I honestly don't know a lot about Tampa, but I did find the original ordinance for the 1% set aside for the Arts.

From 2000...

Tampa Public Art - Ordinance Governing Tampa Public Art

Quote :
Sec. 4-1. Intent.

The intent of this chapter is to establish a policy for the city, in keeping with the vitality for which it is nationally recognized, and in order to enhance its aesthetic environment, to encourage private developers/owners of commercial properties to commission a piece of art for each new development or mall or structure or, in lieu thereof, to donate monies to the city for Public Art. The private developers/owners should be inspired to invest time, effort and money into the art displayed on their sites, recognizing that the art not only will become integral, lasting components of the cityscape but will be of intrinsic value to their developments. Further, the city, desiring to expand public experience and exposure to culture through various art forms and to enhance the appearance of public facilities and improve the environment of the city on behalf of its citizens, intends to provide for the incorporation of visual art in the design and construction of public facilities within the city.

From what I gather, and I encourage reading the ordinance, the city not only invests 1% on art for municipal buildings, but also expects commercial developers to follow their example. Section 4-5 makes that abundantly clear...

Quote :
Sec. 4-5. Commercial construction participation.

(a)Any private developer/owner who applies to the city for building permits to construct or reconstruct a commercial structure shall be encouraged to commit one (1) percent of construction or reconstruction costs up to but not limited to the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) to the provision of fine art in conjunction with such commercial structure.

(b)Those private developers/owners constructing commercial structures, to be accomplished in phases, need contribute only one (1) percent of construction or reconstruction costs up to but not limited to two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for the entire phased project.

(c)If the private developer/owner constructing or reconstructing a commercial structure does not wish to have fine art in conjunction therewith, he may donate to the city an amount equal to the percentage of the construction cost of the commercial structure as a charitable donation.

(d)Each building permit issued by the city to any such private developer/owner will include data relative to the private developer/owner participating in the Public Art program in the city.

(e)Any building permit for construction or reconstruction of a commercial structure shall be reported to the Public Art committee.

So it appears that it's not correct to portray the set aside as being solely a responsibility of the taxpayers. It should be obvious to anyone that works of art are vital to the culture of any world class city. I won't even bother trying to convince anyone else of that, because if you don't "get it," then there's nothing I can say that's going to change your mind.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 12:35 pm

There is a big difference between "shall be encouraged to" and but if you don't "the private developer/owner constructing or reconstructing a commercial structure does not wish to have fine art in conjunction therewith, he may donate to the city an amount equal to the percentage of the construction cost of the commercial structure as a charitable donation."

This is just not right IMO. It is a mandatory confiscation of money which is bad enough on the private side but even worse on the taxpayer side.

It should be obvious to anyone that works of art are vital to the culture of any world class city.

You know people say that but I don't know how true it is. I'm sure lots of factory workers from around America flock to Harrison Park every year just to see "The Thinking Man" or whatever that rusty old hunk of steel is called that cost us more than it should have.

I really don't know why you and a few others are so committed to spending taxpayer money and forcing private businesses to contribute to particular expressions of art. Could it be that it just sounds noble or something? Much of what is called "art" anymore ain't worth the canvas it's painted on. And from what I've seen of some expensive newer statues the metals would be more useful to society by being forged into a fuel efficient sub compact.

The irony here is that your position doesn't want people to really have a say in what they're paying for and merely forces a dollar figure to be expended regardless of actual esthetic enhancement to the community. Everyone just pays! From my position of voluntarily choosing to contribute towards art projects you maintain the free will choice. I'm sure many a developer has overpaid for something that wasn't all that hot just to comply with the set aside and be done with it.

So it's a matter of force vs choice in it's simplest terms. I guess that's the part "I" will never get as being a good thing.
Back to top Go down
Robin Banks

avatar

Posts : 1545

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 1:25 pm

Why not allow the architecture to be the art? I personally would prefer that if there is funding available for art that it be used for architectural enhancements rather than statues.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 1:44 pm

Mirage wrote:
The irony here is that your position doesn't want people to really have a say in what they're paying for and merely forces a dollar figure to be expended regardless of actual esthetic enhancement to the community. Everyone just pays! From my position of voluntarily choosing to contribute towards art projects you maintain the free will choice. I'm sure many a developer has overpaid for something that wasn't all that hot just to comply with the set aside and be done with it
.

That's just BS. You have every right to "have a say," and if you don't like how your taxpayer dollars are spent, then you have every right to let the politicians know about it and you can vote them out of office if you find enough people who agree with your position. Hell, there are lots of things that are financed with public dollars that I don't like. Public Art just doesn't happen to be one of them.

As far as private developers go, we just totally disagree. If developers don't like the rules, then they can take their business somewhere else. A municipal government has every right to impose conditions on the issuance of building permits, as long as the rules apply equally to similar projects.

There is absolutely no point in getting into a discussion of "what is and what isn't art." Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's like trying to argue about music.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 1:46 pm

Really in one sense it's not a lot different than say requiring that all new homes have a tree and a shrub. Now I happen to like landscaping but I don't want the government to tell me how I MUST decorate my yard.

Now were I a housing developer I would likely want to voluntarily landscape to make the units more attractive anyway. I could even see the point of a green space set aside as a percentage of the project since it is essentially neighborhood building. But should such a development be forced to buy some form of art just to comply with a biased legal requirement? Not in my book.

So maybe they should have to choose a goddess statue to place at the entrance of the gated communities now? But I guess Biblical figures would be too controversial to be "acceptable art." Razz
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/23/2009, 1:48 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Mirage wrote:
The irony here is that your position doesn't want people to really have a say in what they're paying for and merely forces a dollar figure to be expended regardless of actual esthetic enhancement to the community. Everyone just pays! From my position of voluntarily choosing to contribute towards art projects you maintain the free will choice. I'm sure many a developer has overpaid for something that wasn't all that hot just to comply with the set aside and be done with it
.

That's just BS. You have every right to "have a say," and if you don't like how your taxpayer dollars are spent, then you have every right to let the politicians know about it and you can vote them out of office if you find enough people who agree with your position. Hell, there are lots of things that are financed with public dollars that I don't like. Public Art just doesn't happen to be one of them.

As far as private developers go, we just totally disagree. If developers don't like the rules, then they can take their business somewhere else. A municipal government has every right to impose conditions on the issuance of building permits, as long as the rules apply equally to similar projects.

There is absolutely no point in getting into a discussion of "what is and what isn't art." Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's like trying to argue about music.

Actually I guess all I really have is a right to complain. If I truly had a "say" I would have the right to opt out, wouldn't I? Wink
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   2/24/2009, 12:26 pm

Hey, speaking of public art work this story has come back to the limelight. A bait & tackle shop in Clearwater, FL was ordered to remove a very attractive mural of fish painted on the side of his business, claiming it's a code violation.

So in January he covered the mural with a plastic sheet that has words about free speech written on it. So then the city told him to take it down and upped the fine! The ACLU is now getting involved.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Clearwater-sign-Complete-Angler-mural-fine/LyoOI8pHt06AytvnBplMXA.cspx

So I guess his mistake was that he should have paid way more money for the mural and then claimed it was part of his government mandated set aside for the arts. Razz
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Public Arts Scam   

Back to top Go down
 
Public Arts Scam
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: