Sending public art to the voters a sound move, in Detroit as well as Ann Arbor
Should Washtenaw County voters be asked to support the Detroit Institute of Arts? Would Ann Arbor voters support a public art tax? Both questions arose last week, raising still more questions about both the county’s role in the southeast Michigan regional landscape—and what role voters here could and should play in supporting the arts.
On the DIA millage—passed on Tuesday by voters in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties—residents of Washtenaw were not faced with a choice. That’s because the millage effort—which originally found in polls that voters here were supportive of it—determined that its best and most expedient route was to focus on the three core Metro Detroit counties.
And then on Thursday, Ann Arbor’s City Council raised the likelihood that voters in November will get a chance to decide whether the city should levy a four-year, 0.1-mill tax to pay for public art. If passed, it would raise about $460,000 annually and end the city’s “Percent for Art” program that now funds public art.
We support the DIA, and believe that the best decision was made in that millage effort to exclude Washtenaw County from the vote. Patrons here can still support the cultural institution through user fees and direct donations. Pulling Washtenaw into that vote raised too many other unresolved questions about how much we should be involved in regional funding decisions. While we support pursuing a stronger relationship with Metro Detroit, we’re simply not there yet.
On the public art vote, AnnArbor.com has expressed support for the city’s public art program and we continue to do so. We’ve urged the city to give preference to local and Michigan artists, and we’ve also urged due diligence on controlling costs and making sound financial decisions.
The reason behind the support is the long and deep benefits the city enjoys from embracing the arts: The economic development activity of the Ann Arbor Art Fair and University of Michigan arts-related events, the quality of life issue from the many arts-related activities here, and the quality and breadth of the local artists’ work. We stood behind the program as it was initiated. We’ve also recognized some residents’ concerns about the costs and value of the public art.
As council considers placing the measure on the ballot, we offer initial support to the move - and also urge its proponents to consider what they’ve learned from detractors to craft a proposal that generates a landslide victory, signaling their ability to achieve widespread support.
Comments
Brad
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 11:49 p.m.
"I can readily imagine an argument that the People had spoken and that the One Percent program ought to be repealed" Sounds like someone has been to the Lowenstein school of PR.
Goober
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.
So this is what sunk Detroit. Go figure.
David Cahill
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.
There is not really a legal problem in repealing the percent for art ordinance. Councilmember Taylor (probably joined by others) will be offering a resolution placing the question of a public art millage on the November ballot. This resolution could include language that, regardless of the outcome of the millage vote, Council will repeal the percent for art program by, say, January 1, 2013. The millage vote itself would not contain this repealer, so we avoid the problem Councilmember Taylor outlines above. Then, after the election, Council would move ahead with the repeal of the percent for art ordinance. It is a two-step process that takes several weeks. Simple! Easy to understand! Even fun! 8-)
OverTaxed
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.
This is another attack of the Democrats on the Middle Class. This is a Democratic city and they keep increasing taxes. Times are tough, let's buy art. Socialist sidewalk repair. Building a city hall without people consent. What is this, communist China? The list goes on. If you people want Europe, move there. Stop messing up my country. My relatives died to stop what you people keep legislating. I am sick of the two faced lies being pumped out by Democrat party, local and national. We're for the Middle Class. Which middle class, in which country? Obama, liar; Governor, liar (he is no conservative, no matter what you say); Mayor, liar, City Council, liars. I am a taxpayer and not paying for your garbage any more.
annarbor28
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 2:28 p.m.
Have (local) artists display their art for sale around Ann Arbor or have art donated by the artist or a buyer. Why do people in A2 have to spend money on random pieces of art? How much does the city make or lose in the Art Fair each year, in terms of services such as police, fire, etc? How is this funded? How about other popular events? Are these being supported by taxpayer money? All from the 1% Art Monies, or from separate funds? It may be that all millage money needs to go for the above, so buying expensive European fountains will be out. It also may be that the public "art" funds owes the city for providing all of this support.
johnnya2
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.
The Art Fairs that take place in July have an economic impact of approximately $60 million. The visitors are estimated at 600,000. Without Art, the city may as well be an other city. The goal of a city is to have a quality of life. If the arguments are only about necessities, then, we need to stop having roads, since not everyone drives. We need to get rid of parks, since not everybody uses them. We should get rid of schools, since many of us do not have children, never had them and never will. If that is the world you wan tot live in, then maybe Ann Arbor is not the cvity for yoou
Christopher Taylor
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
@braggslaw State law requires that ballot measures be one-subject, Yes/No questions. For this reason, we cannot ask the voters to approve or reject a millage to replace One Percent funding AND effect an ordinance repeal in the event of a No vote. If the voters rejected a proposed Art Millage to replace One Percent, I can readily imagine an argument that the People had spoken and that the One Percent program ought to be repealed. This would necessitate separate Council action and be the subject of a full Public Hearing. If a millage were to lose, I suspect that such a proposal would be made in short order.
Goober
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
Is this really good advice?
braggslaw
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.
Exactly, the simple yes, no....should public funds be used for artsy fartsy projects?
Brad
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
No problem. Just make the millage totally uncoupled from the "1%" and repeal the current ordinance before the election. No ballot issues and the public art funding is truly put to an up-down vote. But I don't believe that's what you want, is it?
SonnyDog09
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
We all know why the Art Millage is going on the ballot. Enough of Hizzoner's lapdogs were defeated in the recent primary election that it is very likely that the Percent for Art program will be repealed by Council. So, Hizzoner and his minions want to create yet another "bucket" of cash to fritter and waste.
Basic Bob
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.
When representative government fails, we turn to popularity contests among interested voters.
David Cahill
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
The best way to achieve widespread support for the proposed millage is for Council to repeal the present, er, "defective" percent for art program regardless of the outcome of the millage vote. In that way, voters will be choosing between a much-improved public art program that could fund such things as FestiFools, and ending the present unfortunate program altogether. A nice, clear choice.
Brad
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
So who is casting down votes for a "nice, clear [democratic] choice", and why? Please explain.
Albert Howard
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
Should Washtenaw County voters be asked to support the Detroit Institute of Arts? No. Would Ann Arbor voters support a public art tax? No.
JMG
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
Local governments are not allowed to discriminate against outsiders. Ohio can't discriminate against Michigan residents; Columbus can't discriminate against Ann Arbor residents; Ann Arbor can't discriminate against non-Ann Arbor residents. A local preference would be great -- it's just unconstitutional.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 2:26 p.m.
Nonsense. One simply puts terms in the RFP that can only be met by local artists. Don't you know how things work?
amlive
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
They can't discriminate based on race or religion (though I think they could still legally can discriminate against LGBT), but if the DDA or city council wants to buy art I don't know of anything in the constitution which forbids them from favoring local artists.
annarbor28
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
Are you a constitutional attorney, and if so, please cite cases? I will check with some, but it's a bit early in the day. How does a state university preference its own state's students, then? How can it charge less to them? I believe it has to do with taxes and residency.
Brad
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 12:47 p.m.
So this is the second article about this, and it still doesn't specify what would happen to "1%" if the art millage goes to a vote and is defeated. And I think we know why - because there is no plan to discontinue it in that case like there should be. So what does the "editorial board" think about that, and why aren't they saying? You are correct that public art funding should go to a vote, but it should go to a REAL vote where we are choosing whether or not to use public funds for art. The way it appears now we are heading for a sham where we are "allowed" to choose between two different ways to fund public art. Editorial board - you had an opportunity to actually take a meaningful position here and dodged it.
annarbor28
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.
There is a huge difference between the public "art" decisions made in Ann Arbor and maintenance of one of the best and most storied art museums in the country, the DIA. Buying random, often unpopular pieces of art and sprinkling them around the city, as well as other controversial uses of hard-earned taxpayer money in Ann Arbor is a completely different proposal. Until more responsibility is shown with the use of the money, the City of Ann Arbor should spend no money on art. In addition, if funds are allocated, art should be required to be bought from local artists, perhaps extending to all of Michigan, to represent the fine work being done here and the nature of the university with a strong state history.
braggslaw
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.
Why does it have to be an "either" "or" for Ann Arbor's public art funding. I would like the ballot to ask whether public funds should be used for these types of programs.
annarbor28
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
Excellent idea. U-M has an excellent art museum. If "public art" means buying nonfunctional fountains while cutting back on police, fire and other essential services, while increasing the need for them with the building of high-rise Section 8 housing (statistically shown) then the city needs to get its priorities straight. Public "art" is controversial enough to require a vote as to using taxpayer money at all for these uses. Thank you annarbor.com for bringing up the proposal for voting on public "art" at all. Hopefully it will be defeated unless it is local and devoted to small projects, with a guarantee to work if functional. Public "art" in A2 is not the DIA. Not even close.