Today's News-Gazette:
The budget put forward by Prussing includes $36,000, including salary and benefits, for a three-quarter time arts coordinator and $24,000 in rent subsidies for art galleries that have opened in downtown Urbana. But the $50,000 line item for public arts projects relies on the donations and arts events revenue.
Chynoweth wants to raise the public arts line item, which could pay for arts grants and commissioning public art, to $76,000 and to use tax increment money instead of hoped-for donations.
"One of our top council goals was to provide a dedicated revenue stream for the arts," Chynoweth said. "We created a task force and then a public arts commission. Now it comes to budget time and we say 'Whoops, there's no money for art!'"
Prussing said the budget reflects what the city can afford.
Discuss.
Leave it to Chynoweth to be completely irresponsible with other people's money. She's something else. How about spending that money on something that would actually benefit the citizens of Urbana.
is it nuclear-free art?
How much have recent increases in gasoline and natural gas cost the city?
Michael Fuerst
Chynoweth doesn't care about cost increases to the city, she just cares about her own priorities. If it was up to her, the city wouldn't own any vehicles. Cops and firefighters could walk everywhere.
"If it was up to her, the city wouldn't own any vehicles. Cops and firefighters could walk everywhere."
Really? Can you point me to a quote where she says this?
Whether or not you agree that the city of Urbana should support the arts with public dollars, Chynoweth has a valid point: the council created a task force and then a public arts commission -- two moves that represent at least an initial commitment. For the mayor to then pull the rug out from under the commission seems inconsistent.
Just another public official spending dollars that are not their own. What's more amazing than such a huge waste of money is that people can actually take CHYNO serious? WHEW....
Most public art projects are funded through an entity established by the city and contributed to by developer through an established percentage of the cost of a project. For example the WalMart and Menard projects and all of the new development along Philo Road would generate a lot of money if 1% of the total cost of the projects would be given to the public art project fund by the developer. This is viewed as a way to improve a community and the cost of doing business and making money in the community, no different than a developer paying for sidewalks, dedicating land for a park. Great examples are Philadelphia--probably the oldest such program, Atlanta, Chicago, and may others. So don't wrestle about the city funding, but wrestle about ways to get a percentage of the cost of developments.
Pattsi Petrie
"This is viewed as a way to improve a community and the cost of doing business and making money in the community"
Your tax would not be the cost of doing business. It would be the cost of shopping. But it's probably best to talk about the cost of doing business, that way people will vote for the tax because they won't think they are paying for it. And the "artists" who benefit from the tax dollars will have an easier time sleeping at night because they took money from the Walton's and not the poor people who shop at Walmart.
Is there anyone on this site who thinks that, sometimes, just maybe, stimulating art IS something that benefits the community?
"Is there anyone on this site who thinks that, sometimes, just maybe, stimulating art IS something that benefits the community?"
:raises hand:
I just don't particularly care for taxpayer funds being directly used for it. It's another one of those things that I think market forces can handle most efficiently.
I think rich people voluntarily stimulating art is wonderful.
My experience is that when private or public money is used to stimulate art, often the stimulator will attempt to pervert and restrict the development of the art to their own nefarious goals. I think this is a good argument for state sanctioned, unrestricted art. Of course, we would need some decent elected officials for this to happen, which in some places we have and others we do not.
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing nearly 100% with Xian on this one...i think i may need to go lay down ;-)
I would much rather have public money go towards the arts in public places, or places where it is easy (meaning, cheap) for the public to visit or attend. Private money could (should) go to art in specific places, like galleries or sections of museums, or discrete sections of larger, public spaces. For the latter, the specific example that came to mind is a private group or individual financing the design, contruction, and placement of a statue at Meadowbrook Park. Like Xian said, motiviated and attentive public officials is an important thing...
HG
My experience is that when private or public money is used to stimulate art, often the stimulator will attempt to pervert and restrict the development of the art to their own nefarious goals. I think this is a good argument for state sanctioned, unrestricted art.
That is exactly why it should be private. If some Art Council or Foundation is funding lousy/ugly/offensive art, you can quit giving them money. No such option exists with tax $$$$.
The concept of what the Urbana municipal government is trying to do with a very miniscule amount of tax dollars, has been misunderstood by some to be a pot of money for the purchasing of public sculptures. A dubious expenditure to be sure if you consider some of the Vine street corridor disasters like the wierd stainless steel piece in front of the Federal Courthouse or the even wierder stainless steel fountain on the north side of Urbana's City building. If that is the kind of public arts program Urbana has in mind, criticism couldn't come fast enough. Luckily, this is not what Urbana's program is likely to be all the time. There may be some permanent acquisitions for public areas, murals included, but the money could fund other activities besides visual art. Urbana is ripe for a major outdoor Jazz Festival for example. Another possibility could be retirement centers and nursing homes could be publishing a monthly literary magazine to capture the local history. Perhaps a municipal water park could be built, or maybe an urban movie walk-in theatre for outdoor movies in the summer could be started with the money. The point is the public will always have access to the arts task force for input and it would not be hard to voice opposition to any loony, hair-brain academy work that doesn't have much to do with our county or town. If it's true that stuff like the flower gardens and flower urns around town, the Todd Framm sculpture in front of the Urbana Library, the alma mater in front of Altgeld, the $115 million stadium renovation to watch better the boys catch touchdowns, the Fox/Par 3 redevelopment, Hessel Park and Westside Park are what make the town worth living in, then our government spending $64,000 on a little decoration and recreation might not be a bad investment to spend a year. An interesting place can also create a good place to do business.
"Most public art projects are funded through an entity established by the city and contributed to by developer through an established percentage of the cost of a project."
This source of funding was addressed in the task force's proposal to create the arts commission.