Ann Arbor considers task force to reassess public art efforts after defeat of tax proposal
Now that Ann Arbor voters have rejected a proposal to tax themselves to pay for public art, city officials are reassessing the city's existing Percent For Art Program.
The issue took center stage at Monday night's City Council meeting, which was the first meeting for three new members: Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Hart Petersen and Chuck Warpehoski.
At her first meeting as a member of the Ann Arbor City Council, newly elected Sumi Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, called for repeal of the city's Percent For Art Program Monday night.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"What I think we're talking about is a council task force, so to speak, of five members, and it would be important for them also to receive input from community members and members of the Art Commission," said Mayor John Hieftje.
The council considered three separate agenda items related to public art, all of which ultimately were tabled or postponed Monday night.
That included Council Member Jane Lumm's proposal to terminate the Percent For Art Program effective July 1, 2013. She argued city voters have spoken and it's time to listen.
"The reality is voters finally had a chance to vote on public art, over 50,000 of them did, and it was rejected by a 56-44 margin," Lumm said.
Other council members said they can't be so sure what was going through the minds of voters when they shot down the proposed public art tax on Nov. 6.
Some argue a no vote on the tax just as easily could be translated as support for continuing the Percent For Art Program since that's effectively what it did.
"They rejected the millage, not art in public places," said Petersen, D-2nd Ward. "I'm hesitant to interpret the no vote on Proposal B to be a no vote for art in public places."
The tax rejected by voters on Nov. 6 would have raised close to $460,000 a year in new revenue to fund a new art program that would have replaced the controversial Percent For Art Program, which was established by the City Council in late 2007.
Under the existing program, the city takes 1 percent of the money budgeted for city capital projects and sets it aside for public art. That has resulted in diverting well over $2 million from dedicated millages for streets, parks and solid waste, as well as water and sewer utility funds.
Council members have expressed concerns the city is too restricted in what kinds of art projects it can undertake given the constraints of the Percent For Art Program. According to the city, the installations have to be permanent and they have to somehow relate to the source funds.
"There's no flexibility to have the kind of cultural art we want, so it's really problematic," Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, said Monday night. "I think we should repeal this. Nobody is questioning whether art is valuable or not, whether art should be funded or not. No, that's not the issue."
The council voted 8-3 to table Lumm's proposal with only Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, joining her in calling for a vote on the program's termination.
After tabling Lumm's proposal, the council considered a proposal from Council Members Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, and Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward. They wanted to significantly narrow the scope of the program and increase the involvement of the public and the council in deciding art projects.
After some discussion, the council voted 9-2 to table that proposal, too, with only Lumm and Kailasapathy in favor of putting it up to a vote.
More than $300,000 a year is being channeled into the art fund through the current program. The city's staff estimated the proposed revisions would eliminate about 90 percent of that revenue.
"I think we all need to go back to our constituents and ask how they feel about how the city of Ann Arbor should demonstrate its commitment to art," Council Member Sally Hart Petersen, left, said at her first meeting Monday night. Council Member Jane Lumm, right, called for termination of the city's Percent For Art Program.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"If we are honest, the projects funded through the program have had less than universal acceptance," she said, calling the program "flawed from the start."
Lumm said it's not her priority, but if the council wants to publicly fund art then it at least owes it to taxpayers to find a better mechanism than the Percent For Art Program.
Briere said the Nov. 6 election results only tell city officials that 56 percent of voters decided they did not want to be taxed for public art, but 44 percent actually did want to be taxed.
"When we represent our constituents, we don't represent only those who agree with us. We represent those who disagree with us," Briere said. "We don't just represent the majority. We represent all the minority voices as well. I would really like an opportunity to hear those minority voices."
Higgins said she'd like to see council establish a public art task force at its next meeting Dec. 3 and have the task force report back with recommendations in February or March.
"I think the charges of that committee or task force would be very important. I think looking at the funding is imperative," Higgins said. "Making a decision on whether or not we go forward at all is also something this committee is going to have to wrestle with."
Petersen said she thinks it's important for the city to demonstrate its commitment to art in public places in order to "raise the tide of all artistic endeavors in Ann Arbor."
"I think we all need to go back to our constituents and ask how they feel about how the city of Ann Arbor should demonstrate its commitment to art," she said.
After the first two proposals were tabled, Higgins brought forward a resolution to suspend use of funds set aside through the Percent For Art Program until April 1. She said that would allow council time to decide whether or how to amend the public art ordinance. But after a brief discussion, the council decided to postpone consideration of that resolution until Dec. 3.
Margaret Parker, former chairwoman of the city's Public Art Commission, appeared before council members Monday night and cited statistics that show four other Big Ten college towns have percent for art programs and another four fund public art through a mix of public/private dollars.
"This funding mechanism may not be perfect, but it works," Parker said of Ann Arbor's Percent For Art Program, which she helped launch. "The last five years that we've had it, we've had more public art than ever before, and at least 10 more projects are ready to go."
Marsha Chamberlin, the current chairwoman of the Public Art Commission, agreed there's a lot in the pipeline. That includes public art projects at Argo Cascades and the new Stadium bridges.
She advised council members to avoid rushing to make a decision on public art that could negatively impact the work that's being done by the Art Commission.
A look at money channeled to the city's art fund from various other funds since the inception of the Percent For Art Program in 2007. The city also has put other dollars toward public art that are not shown here.
Source: City of Ann Arbor
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Barbara Brown
Wed, Nov 21, 2012 : 3:55 p.m.
while it is great that the council is taking on board the public's voice in terms of recent election result, rejecting a millage does not mean rejecting public art.
Nicole B.
Wed, Nov 21, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
Sure, I wouldn't mind ponying up some of my tax dollars for actual art. Unfortunately, "art" these days means some abstract--if not outright bizarre--nonsense that is more eyesore than public amenity. No-talent, no-skills hacks must see Hieftje a mile away, like a neon beacon flashing "chump."
Charles Curtis
Wed, Nov 21, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.
Public art is a good thing, but the issue at hand is the city is having issues with maintaining what they have now and want to expand what they do (not just limited to arts). I for one think that the public art program in full should not be tax funded by more than 10% of what is spent. Its something that should be fund raised with minimal tax money used for administrative costs.. Having continuous funding from a tax is crazy with all the budget issues. In the past I believe many public art items were donated from private people or companies. I believe the art has more support when it come from that rather than the government thinking for the public. The fountain at city hall was a mess from onset. Over priced, poorly designed, and pumps that did not function all decided by our big brother city government.. Im not sure if the public has continued support for the current public art program. What should happen is a new program ought to be designed and submitted for a vote replacing all existing government programs. The mentality that the public did not like the expanded program submitted, but has full support for what we currently have is laughable. Clearly the public has begun to wake up to the 'spend anything on whatever, its not our personal money' way our current city government works. One last question - where is the funding coming from for the proposed task force? Or is this another of Ann Arbors excuses to waste more tax money on poorly thought out things. If the public has support for public art, then any task force/committee ought to be made up of volunteers FROM Ann Arbor. We have too many consultants (usually from outside the area) who make up these type of groups.
Frustrated in A2
Wed, Nov 21, 2012 : 4:46 a.m.
Let it go...
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.
""What I think we're talking about is a council task force, so to speak, of five members, and it would be important for them also to receive input from community members and members of the Art Commission," said Mayor John Hieftje." The Art Commission IS the problem. Hello.
Karen
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
"Briere said the Nov. 6 election results only tell city officials that 56 percent of voters decided they did not want to be taxed for public art, but 44 percent actually did want to be taxed. When we represent our constituents, we don't represent only those who agree with us. We represent those who disagree with us," Briere said. "We don't just represent the majority. We represent all the minority voices as well. I would really like an opportunity to hear those minority voices." You did hear from those minority voices - they voted for the tax, but the majority voted against it. And the last time I checked, "majority rules" still applies in this city despite the fact that the vote didn't go your way. My goodness, you are sore losers. "Under the existing program, the city takes 1 percent of the money budgeted for city capital projects and sets it aside for public art. That has resulted in diverting well over $2 million from dedicated millages for streets, parks and solid waste, as well as water and sewer utility funds." We voted against the art tax, period. We want our tax money to be spent on the other things listed above and we can handle our own art choices thanks.
golfer
Wed, Nov 21, 2012 : 12:12 a.m.
briere you are so lucky you are still in. do not know how but you belong on the art commission as it chairperson. put it on the ballot.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:57 p.m.
If council is not going to respect the will of the people and rescind the Percent for Art ordinance, then before they start tweaking it they ought to immediately request a public, written opinion from the city attorney on its legality considering Michigan law and both Michigan and national case law. More info: http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/taxes-for-art/ http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1278757.html
Tom Whitaker
Wed, Nov 21, 2012 : 3:34 a.m.
I don't buy the target argument. If the program is legal and defensible, then there is no target. If it's legality is questionable or if it's vulnerable to a negative outcome in a civil suit, then the attorney should advise that it be eliminated and all restricted funds reimbursed. Again--no harm, no foul, no target. I can see the need for confidential attorney advice on matters relating to current or pending litigation, or personnel matters, but legal opinions on public policy matters should be public record and filed with the clerk as required by the charter--preferably BEFORE council moves forward and commits millions of dollars.
glenn thompson
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
The opinion should be more than just a statement that the city attorney believes the program is legal or illegal. It should include a statement of the probable results if a judge disagrees with the city attorney's position. I do not believe such an opinion will ever be made public. It would be the equivalent of paint a large legal target on the side of city hall. Perhaps has already been presented under attorney client privilege.
Sully
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
I voted against the art millage and contary to what city council members might think, It's because I opposed both the millage and Percent for Art, but felt getting rid of Percent for Art now would be easier then trying to get rid of the millage later. It's crazy the way the city is going about this. Ann Arbor is full of local artistic talent that would jump at the chance to have their art displayed. Ann Arbor also is full of relatively wealthy citizens who would jump at the chance to have themselves listed as sponsoring an art project. If the city needs to have a program, let be it something where private citizens can fund local art (which would be more meaningful than a beauracrat shipping in something from Germany), leaving taxpayers and essential services off the hook.
brimble
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:29 p.m.
Council created a funding mechanism, dedicated to a specific, non-essential purpose, using a method which it legally questionable. Then, they broke their own rules on how that funding should be expended. Then, they asked the voters to approve an alternative mechanism, free from legal question, to continue the same program on which no one voted originally. The voters turned down the alternative, leaving Council back in square one: unsure what to do about a debacle that demonstrates questionable application of the law, which is unpopular by the majority, and which has been a functional failure in implementation. This isn't about art; it is about questionable motives and incompetent execution.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.
Once again the inevitability of 'planned projects' is waved as a reason to keep spending money. Ms. Parker says that there are 10 projects in the works, and yet the city has only recently (Nov. 9th) closed the request for Statement of Qualifications from artists for one project, the art related to the Stadium Bridge reconstruction. There is a tragic tendency in this city to float an idea, then try to hustle up some money to support that idea, under the guise of inevitability. If the idea exists, it must be brought to fruition! say the supporters. We can't turn our back on this, look, we have paid for a study that describes how this idea works! Think Fuller Road Transit Station and new Downtown Library bond. This is the same trick played by developers - once an architect is paid to do a drawing, it is as if the project is Real. There is no check in place at City Hall to judge a project on its merits. That is what the ballot box is for, unless, of course, the ballot question is deliberately malformed or misleading...
a2grateful
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.
Yes, Al McWilliams, you are right. People here are grumpy about being robbed and looted: 1) By the crooks that have their way due to the cops being fired and absent. 2) By the crooks at city hall that have legal and fiduciary responsibility to represent and protect expressed citizen interest, but choose to do otherwise.
Al McWilliams
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.
Really?
harry
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.
if we only had more art I know this economy would improve.
Al McWilliams
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.
Well, one thing is certain, you lot are unpleasant enough to undo any goodwill built by having a nice, beautiful city to live in. Who would want to move here and hang out with these grumpy folks? My Goodness.
Sam S Smith
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
Who would want to move here? People that don't have to pay huge taxes, want a city government who listens to them, provides basic services...
Arieswoman
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 5:26 p.m.
I love the art in Tecumseh but sure don't much like the art in Ann Arbor. Take a drive through Tecumseh and enjoy the art on the street corners. Not inside a secured building!
CynicA2
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.
Anyone on council who fails to get the message on public art should find themselves out of a job come their next election cycle. The money-sucking vampire known as "public art" needs a stake through its heart once and for all. The majority has spoken, but some of these clowns on council still don't get it.
fjord
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
I have no problem funding public art when times are good — when we have fully staffed police stations and firehouses, when all of our roads are in good shape, and when even with those conditions met, our revenues still exceed our expenditures. When there's extra cash, sure, put some of it into public art. Carefully. Cautiously. With input from the public. This is not one of those times. Pull the plug on public art funding until we're flush again.
glenn thompson
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
Let's be clear, we are discussing when proposing to eliminate the one percent for art. It is the purchase of art, selected by a committee, funded by the taxpayers that never voted for the program. To me this is illegal under the Michigan state constitution. I think the legal issue and possible legal result if the program were challenged should be an important part of the discussion. Second, eliminating this program would not restrict the design of buildings with display space for donated exhibits or rotating displays. The art fund did not pay for the secure lobby space of the Municipal build, only the expensive chandelier. What it would eliminate is a slush fund for government paid art. Art that can easily become like the propaganda art of the Soviet states. It does not even eliminate bad art, if Council wants it. It only means that Council would have to directly vote for the funding of that art. All eliminating the one percent for art does is eliminates the hidden automatic creation of a large, probably illegal slush fund, that "must be spent for art .
Jack Eaton
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 5:19 p.m.
Glenn makes an important point. The percent for art mechanism creates a huge fund for art. That huge fund creates pressure to buy some art, any art. You don't go to the art fair determined to spend a particular amount of money before seeing what you like. If you felt you had to spend a particular amount, you might buy some art that you really didn't want -- like an ugly fountain or expensive light fixture. What you actually do is go look at the art and if something catches your fancy, you try to find a way to afford it. You have to weigh the expenditure against your other budget priorities. If Council made the spending decision after finding art, then we would be saved from the need to spend that ever growing pot of money diverted from our restricted infrastructure funds. We could actually see what we are buying before approving the purchase.
ChapmanonCopley
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
"Curiouser and Curiouser" Alice cried. Only in Ann Arbor could realty be stranger than Wonderland, when a No Vote actually means Yes and a Yes Vote means whatever one wants it to be. What color are the roses to be today?
Basic Bob
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 5 p.m.
Rose-colored, as always.
BHarding
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.
I'd read, in this online paper, that the council would probably dismantle the 1% program if the Tax for Art proposal didn't pass. Now it seems they're back-pedaling.........as if they didn't get the message.
a2grateful
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
So, since mayor and council think defeat is really approval, let's welcome Albert Howard as our new mayor! Such is the tragic flaw in the logic stated in council's comedic public art discussion. The prevalent artist in Ann Arbor is the "confidence artist" in city hall. The art produced is a "confidence trick," whereby citizens are defrauded after gaining their trust. The trust was the citizen support of millages dedicated for specific reason. The fraud is using dedicated millage money for non millage purpose. The confidence artist uses "shills," or accomplices, to defraud in the blatant operation of dishonesty, greed, selfishness, vanity (why most art is located at city hall), and outright criminality. It's the hallmark of the Hieftje crew. Hall as in city hall. Mark as in stupid, unquestioning constituents, that allow repeated disregard for their clearly stated preferences, as they are treated with maximal contempt and disdain.
arborani
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.
And yet we keep voting them back in, don't we? Curse of the "straight ticket" mentality.
Linda Peck
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
Amen
davecj
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:47 p.m.
Still don't believe the percent for art ptogram is legal. When we vote for road and sewer millages, we are not saying it os OK to skim money for art, we are saying spen our money on roads and sewers. hOW CAN WE FIND OUT IF THIS IS EVEN LEGAL??
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:48 p.m.
You could ask your city council rep to demand a written, public opinion from the city attorney. The City Charter actually requires this, but the current attorney has chosen to use semantics to avoid this provision. Council now needs to vote in the majority to request it. Last time this was proposed, it was voted down by council.
Basic Bob
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.
Or grants. Did the grant application reveal that the city would steal money from its intended purpose?
Linda Peck
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.
City Council, please hear the majority's "no" and stop spending money on art when we need to use the 1% for basic services. Why should voters have to keep asking for city council to listen? How much louder do we have to speak?
Brad
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
19 votes louder in the 4th ward would've been a great start
annarboral
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
It's simple really. First, eliminate the mandatory 1% for art program. Second, from time to time let the arts commisssion prepare detailed proposals for specific art projects. The proposals would show the what, where and costs. The council could then vote on the specific project based on the perceived merit of the art and the financial realities at that point in time.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.
"Other council members said they can't be so sure what was going through the minds of voters when they shot down the proposed public art tax on Nov. 6." Put the Percent For Art program on the next ballot and you'll find out. I think you won't dare to do that, because I think you know what the result will be.
golfer
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:32 p.m.
they would not even dare to do this. they know the outcome already. just to stubborn to pull the trigger.
Dog Guy
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
I'm pleased that our elected omniscients and their appointed omnipotents will continue skimming our taxes for immortal art to feed our souls. But why have they not initiated a "percent for religion" to support an official Ann Arbor Church to inculcate those correct doctrines they pass resolutions affirming? Under cover of task forces, consultants, and committees they could ignore any legal impediments to a "percent for religion".
Stephen Landes
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.
As one who voted against proposal B I can say that I do not favor giving money to the city to spend on art because the city and its art commission have not shown themselves to be good stewards of our money. This failure of stewardship takes two forms: poorly chosen art work and simply awful architecture. Art work such as the city hall "fountain" is uninspiring and, in my opinion, expensive. Buildings like the city hall/court expansion are simply awful and ugly. I suggest eliminating the "percent for art" program and putting much more thought into the actual structures that we build. The latest stuff on the new Blake Transit Center is just as bad as city hall -- worse, actually, since AATA should have been listening to the uproar over city hall and taken that as reason to be better. Inspiring architecture doesn't have to be more expensive, but it does have to be more thoughtfully developed. To our new Council Person from the 2nd Ward: just take the vote on proposal B as a vote of No Confidence in the city council and its art commission.
S.Black
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.
I've reconsidered a lot of Ann Arbor governmental spending since I read that Washtenaw County's tax rate is ranked around thirty-something among several hundred counties in the USA. (I'm sure Ann Arbor.com can find the exact #). On Oct. 1, I emailed Councilwoman Peterson prior to the election about the Public Art issue. I wrote ".....Also it would be lovely if the City art projects could be proposed and offered a opportunities for private donors or foundations to fund or underwrite projects. I only suggest this because I don't think the millage will pass....." I sure got that right given the margin of loss. Listen to Jane Lumm on this one. Let the one percent issue go out or put it to a vote AGAIN if City Council did not get the message the first time. The voters said NO to money for Public Art at present. Multiple council members said they wanted to hear from their constituents, so let's hear a response to my remarks, Ann Arbor. Interesting body language between Lumm and Peterson in the photo included in the article. I have already contacted both Council members about providing some type of interactive social media communication with their constituents so that ward members could interact with each other and the Council member.I have gotten individual e-mails from them that I would prefer to share with all ward members and/ or Ann Arbor residents. At this time, it seems Ann Arbor.com is the best way to get my point across. Mr. Stanton, good work as always.
bunnyabbot
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.
What really irks me about city council: They put something on the ballot so that no matter how people vote the program will live in some form. One side wins both ways. Way to stack the deck. The results come in and someone has the gull to say "well we represent the minority too", this tells you that they don't like the results, if it had passed the same people would have said "the people have spoken", so this means we have not spoken?" Clearly she doesn''t understand why we vote, because the majority rules, go back to 8th grade Political Science, please, you are an idiot. Lady, the majority spoke, NO TAX. The losers lost, they have no say. and like some of the state level and national level politicians our little patch of green and concrete needs term limits for their elected officials. Without it a self-obsorbed mayor and council members little pet projects and special interests take over all active parts of their brains and their ego forgets why they were elected in the first place. To serve the people not be dictators.
SS
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.
I like art, but aren't smoother roads and a safer city more beautiful than metal sculptures?
RUKiddingMe
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
I would like for Briere to describe, in a scenario in which this millage had PASSED, how the people voting AGAINST it would be taken into consideration. She seems very concerned with making sure the people that voted to tax themselves are taken care of, even though they lost this vote (even with help from non-property tax paying students). So in the event of a WINNING vote for taxing ourselves, how would the people who voted against it be taken care of in this broad world view of hers?
Arboriginal
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:07 p.m.
Timjbd had a great idea with art projects funded by Kickstarter. Then maybe we can have the DDA funded by coins tossed into the phallus phountain at city hall!
bunnyabbot
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Well lets just make a task force because we don't know what was going through peoples minds. UGH! I'll tell you what I was thinking. The 1% Art Program is incredibly wasteful. It was either vote no on a tax or vote yes on a tax to replace a program I do not like. Either way I lose and either way the "art program" proponants win DO AWAY WITH THE PROGRAM FIRST and then ask us to vote on a small tax and not in some off election like May when the turn out is 20% or please, just form a task force and then go down to the river, stick your heads in the water until I feel better about your'all copacity to get it.
Wolf's Bane
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
I think many council members have great ideas and I think their hearts are in the right place, but here is the problem: Voters have rejected the proposal. Nyet. So, that begs the question, what can we do as a community to foster public art and showcase our community? I don't think the answer is another council established a public art task force because their taste level is not up to par with what most of us would call public art. For example, the Orange Trees in West Park are awful, as is the "Urinal" outside City Hall. No, what we need a is a task force specifically made up of people familiar with art and the art world; a group of people with the knowledge and understanding about what art is in terms of the greater context. How art can really foster relevant and social reflections of our great city. No, we do not need council to set up another task force. We need a group of volunteers from the University of Michigan, citizens, and art critiques, dealers, and artists to come together and plot out what the city's needs are.
Brad
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:41 p.m.
Task force! That will let them drag their feet for another 6 or 12 months while they dissemble about the true meaning results of the election. Great job. Welcome to council, Ms. Kailasapathy. Had the people in the 4th and 5th wards been thinking a little more clearly you'd have Mr. Eaton and Ms. Armentrout there with you to further bolster the rational faction anchored by Ms. Lumm. Just hang in there until the next election and we can hopefully rectify that.
Elijah Shalis
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.
Ah yes, let the Trolls with no abstract thought complain about Art.
Basic Bob
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
Please explain what sewer-related art looks like. Or airport-related art. Many of us are too rigid to imagine what these might be.
Brad
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
NOBODY is complaining about the art - it's about the money. Feel free to lead the way for the abstract thinkers by making your voluntary contribution today.
Peter Eckstein
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.
When Council put the public art millage on the ballot without repealing the percent for art, it was in effect telling the voters: By God, we will keep out public art program, and you will pay for it, one way or another, but you get to decide how you pay for it--through skimming off dollars from millages voted for other purposes, or through additional millage. Heads we win, tails you lose. Now that the proposal has been voted down, some are suggesting that maybe this means voters simply approved the existing skimming system--with some of the money used for art that represents waste-water treatment, for example. So there is some part of "No" that they don't seem to understand.
Brad
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:33 p.m.
"Some argue a no vote on the tax just as easily could be translated as support for continuing the Percent For Art Program since that's effectively what it did." And "some argue" that the Ann Arbor city council is pretty much clueless. C'mon who didn't see that coming? That's why there was no "real" vote on taxpayer-funded art, just the faux "choice" between two ways to misspend taxpayer dollars. Great job as usual, council. We knew we could count on you.
Ron Granger
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
The Council brought this on themselves by ignoring the Charter and rules of the art Commission. Those rules set a funding limit of $250K for any project. They immediately - before the art commission had hardly any experience working together and with artists - voted to break the rules and spend $850K for the urinal in front of city hall. They challenged the art commission to work with an uncooperative artist, located thousands of miles away, with very little guidance on the final configuration of the piece. They completely ignored many concerns about how a water sculpture could exist in our winter and summer weather, etc. In short, they decided to Go Big! on their first project and they bungled it. They turned it into a PR nightmare. Unsatisfied, they decided to again ignore the Art Commission charter and rules. They chose to locate an expensive piece in a secure area of the City Palace, where the funding public cannot enjoy it. They seem to think our lives revolve around city hall - a place where we are forced to go when we pay fees, taxes and go to court. They seem to forget that many of us hate going to city hall, and we hate how they appropriated the money for it's construction against our express wishes. The way they squander our Art Fund on city hall is really emblematic of how they funded the building. As someone who appreciates and supports the Arts, I am outraged over how the City Council has bungled this program, and directly contributed to the community backlash. I am also inclined to say they need to gut the art commission and start over with new members.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.
The $250K limit refers to the funding side, not the spending side. The amount skimmed from each capital project cannot exceed $250K, but they are free to spend whatever they wish on each art project.
timjbd
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
I agree with this assessment entirely. It rings with truthiness. And when it comes to this: "They chose to locate an expensive piece in a secure area of the City Palace, where the funding public cannot enjoy it. (...) They seem to forget that many of us hate going to city hall..." But it's where they all go to work.
timjbd
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
Maybe the solution is to put out RFP's for art components within public projects (or stand-alone installations), select the best one, then put that proposal on Kickstarter. Then those who WANT public art can pony up and those who don't, won't.
LXIX
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.
You go Lady Jane - now its off with THEIR head! Some argue a no vote on the tax just as easily could be translated as support for continuing the Percent For Art Program since that's effectively what it did" Who exactly are those "some" as that very excuse was anticipated by A2commenters - long before the vote was taken! Along with giving voters a separate choice - as now echoed by Lumm - to dump the percent program altogether. I guess the new council has to sharpen its teeth on back issues before they chew out the crosswalk law.
Ron Granger
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
My objection to the ballot proposal was that it expanded the program to include "temporary art". I thought that would be a slippery slope, producing nothing of lasting value, and might lead to money being spent on art-fair parties, street events, etc. If it does not result in permanent art installations, it shouldn't be funded by the art fund.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
Over the next few months, watch members of Council who have dreams of running for Mayor dance, do cartwheels and flip flops as to not offend the 'arts' vote. It promises to be a really entertaining public display of cowardliness.
RUKiddingMe
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
"Briere said the Nov. 6 election results only tell city officials that 56 percent of voters decided they did not want to be taxed for public art, but 44 percent actually did want to be taxed. 'When we represent our constituents, we don't represent only those who agree with us. We represent those who disagree with us'" Everyone else sees this, right? I'm not the only person reading this part, am I? This part where the argument is used to continue spending money because the outvoted people still voted? We all see this, right? Can any enterprising legal student from U of M try suing the city over siphoning property tax millages into a separate nonessential use? Doesn't it violate buckets? Perhaps being sued for illegal misspending of property tax funds meant for other purposes would send a clearer message than just being voted against. This whole public art thing is absolutely enraging. I have never seen a clearer proof that these people do NOT have the residents' best interest at heart.
bunnyabbot
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
The biggest part that jumped out from her statement is the clear, CLEAR lack of acknowledgement that the MAJORITY RULES. Otherwise why do we vote? Is their agenda their agenda regardless of how the people voted?
RUKiddingMe
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
No, Ron, putting this vote on the ballot with the deliberate intention of garnering (non-property tax paying) student votes was disingenuous. When it failed, even given those votes, to continue to push for taking money, some how, some way, by hook or by crook, to spend on (poorly thought out, poorly executed) public art projects is disingenuous. Using the argument that the voting minority still want to get taxed somehow is disingenuous. I wonder, had this public art millage PASSED, how would the people voting AGAINST it be represented? I think your claim that the NAY group needs to represented would be very much diluted, or nonexistent, had this passed, and so I find your post disingenuous as well.
Ron Granger
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
If you feel so strongly, start a ballot initiative. Or do what Ms. Griswold did with the library and fund your own PR campaign. But to suggest the large percentage of people who voted in favor of Art should be ignored in their own community is disingenuous, at best.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
"To all who oppose public funding of art: contact your representatives on city council and let them know you want the program terminated." Unless you live in the 4th Ward, where I've given up on HIggins or Teall ever replying to emails. The only way to get either to pay attention is to vote them out of office. From this article Higgins is still clueless.
Sparty
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
Higgins made a proposal but then didn't actually vote for it. That's hypocrisy at it's worst. Typical. But the biggest surprise is that she actually showed up for a City Council meeting.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.
Jack, waiting patiently to see if this results in a real solution or if it's just a delaying tactic. But discussion groups and task forces on the Art issue haven't been very fruitful in the past. But I'm ever the optimist.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.
I have to disagree with you Alan. Council Member Higgins proposed a resolution that would suspend immediately the collection of funds under the percent for arts program and submit the issue of arts funding to a committee. The Council was faced with diametrically opposing resolutions from Council Members Lumm and Briere. Little or no discussion of this issue has taken place since the November defeat of proposal B. Suspending the percentage for arts would provide immediate resolution of concerns about diverting funds from restricted fund accounts while allowing Council members time to discuss the issue and gather the needed 6 votes in support of a permanent resolution. I don't always agree with Council member Higgins, but when I do, it's usually because she has identified a common sense middle ground approach to a difficult issue.
A2Ray
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.
The 4th ward women had better start listening, and replying to e-mails. Teall won by only 18 votes in the August primary. We remember, Alan, but do they?
golfer
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
some of you do not understand the voting. NO we did not turn it down and still support the art reprogram that is in place. WE VOTE ART IN ANY FORM DOWN!
BHarding
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.
I'm all for art, just not for funding it with taxes.
Arboriginal
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.
Down with art! Are you equally "DOWN" with municipal golf courses? SHEESH!
Jack Eaton
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
This isn't a question of whether we should have public art, it is an issue of how to finance that art. When the Council put the arts millage on the ballot, it was in large part with the recognition that the percent for art program was improperly skimming money from restricted funds - water and roads. There is also the question of whether we should add $25,000 for art to the debt load of capital projects financed through bonds. The arts millage would have fixed the problems in the current program but it was defeated. The defeat of the millage leaves us with a defective funding mechanism and no clear electoral directive. Council could have placed two proposals on the ballot, allowing voters to opine on both the millage and the percent for arts program. But it did not. I think it is pretty clear that had the percent for arts program been on the ballot, it would have been defeated, like the arts millage and the library bond. Voters are weary of their elected officials' spending priorities. (We continue to consider closing fire stations, while this is debated) Other communities have public art without support from taxes. Public art can be funded by wealthy benefactors and artists' donations of works. Perhaps an alliance of arts supporters could engage in fundraising for public arts. There are alternatives to taxing residents for such purchases. The percent for arts program is defective. The arts millage was rejected. It is time to pull the plug on public funding of art and seek other means for acquiring public art.
Brad
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 10:18 p.m.
The issue is governance, not art. And totally agreed that the election process was for lack of a better term, somewhat disingenuous. But we all knew that.
Vivienne Armentrout
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
You go, Jack. The ballot issue was manipulative and designed to yield an ambiguous answer. It is now being used as designed, to provide a reasoning for continuing an illegal and seriously flawed program. Let's say in unison: The issue is not public art. It is HOW the art is FUNDED. The Percent for Art program should be abolished. The proponents should then bring back a clean millage proposal for the public to consider. Then we'll really have an answer.
Arboriginal
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
"Other communities have public art without support from taxes. Public art can be funded by wealthy benefactors and artists' donations of works." You are so right! Having a major piece displayed is excellent advertising. Not unlike the much ridiculed "Art" bicycle stands that were not art but advertising for the "Art Center".
Jack Eaton
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.
oops, a typo - in the first paragraph, $25,000 for arts should have been $250,000 for arts. That is the maximum amount that can be diverted for art from any single capital project under the percent for arts program.
golfer
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
YEA YEA AND YEA. after the voters have spoken the city council finally yes finally will look at art. we do not NEED art we need the money to go other places. where all of ann arbor can enjoy and feel our tax dollars are b being spent with good thoughts behind the thinking.. way to go for the first time i think they are doing it the right way. see new people and voting does help. TANKS
Ellis Sams
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
To all who oppose public funding of art: contact your representatives on city council and let them know you want the program terminated. Being a patron of the arts is not a government function. If they hear from enough of you, they will respond. The last election demonstrated the perils of ignoring your constituency.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
For starters, the $50,000 (mis)appropriated from the general fund for the art fund must be returned. I am in favor of using a small amount of money from the other funds to create and curate a rotating public art gallery and adjacent small outdoor sculpture garden as a location for local artists to sell their art via a silent auction system for a fixed period of time. The inside of the Rog Mahal and its green roof garden would be a great cost effective place for that. Otherwise, the city needs to get out of the art business, since we still don't have proper funding in place for fire, police and other basic needs, which should be our priority!
outdoor6709
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
I find it interesting, Democrats actually believe that the 1 % art fee that is part of every project is paid for by contractor. Sorry to inform you , but all contracts are increased by 1% to pay for art fee.
timjbd
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
The Walmart Wolverines really love this topic. "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like and what I like is Walmart savings! And huge parking lots."
mady
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
Walmart...aaaaarrrrggghhhh....
Arboriginal
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.
YES!
antikvetch
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.
I agree! TRUE Wolverines grasp the inner significance of art. Or at least fake it and pretend to be avant-garde. Provincials can be so annoying...
AAW
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa..... Other council members said they can't be so sure what was going through the minds of voters when they shot down the proposed public art tax on Nov. 6. Briere said the Nov. 6 election results only tell city officials that 56 percent of voters decided they did not want to be taxed for public art, but 44 percent actually did want to be taxed. "When we represent our constituents, we don't represent only those who agree with us. We represent those who disagree with us," Briere said. "We don't just represent the majority. We represent all the minority voices as well. I would really like an opportunity to hear those minority voices." blaa blaa blaa blaa NO might just mean NO......... I guess because Mit lost we should let him be VP instead of Joe.......... That seams to be how Briere thinks...
Goober
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.
I have zero faith that the leadership of our city will do the right thing. You see, the majority of AA voters keep them in office. On this basis, they have proven that they will do anything and everything they wish, including chase and purchase art as their top priority. They feel invincible! This current discussion will soon die down and the council will start planning their next art purchase.
Elaine F. Owsley
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.
What, besides that "imported" mess on North Main, has the fund provided in the way of "Public Art"? Oh, right, those whiirleygig things in the park. I saw those in a catalog for $39.95 a piece.
Greg
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:17 p.m.
Kudos to Jane Lumm for getting trying to get our tax dollars out of buying ugly art. If the Mayor and his buddies want art, let them pay for it themselves. Really tired of my tax money being used for so called art that I wouldn't give a dime for.
Arboriginal
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:09 p.m.
How about a field trip to Grand Rapids? Art is everywhere in that city and it's incredible.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.
Not about to add more co2 for something like GR public art or a tour of our greenbelt. I do think it is telling that you seem to imply the money came from private donors. I'm all for this. If you want it, pay for it.
Arboriginal
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
Maybe you should go on the field trip. I was there yesterday and I didn't see any murals painted by children. Grand Rapids has a LOT of private money it's true. We have a MAJOR university with deep pockets. It's all about the partnership.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:55 p.m.
How do they pay for it? BTW, a quick google search yields "La Grande Vitesse" and a bunch of murals painted by kids.
roiwhite
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:06 p.m.
Are we really making this big deal of art? If an artist wants to display their art, have them pay for it and maintain it...
Carole
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
My no vote was not an okay for the city to continue to take a small percentage from other funds and apply it to art. I love are very much, but in these times when funds are very limited something has to go on hold -- unfortunately that is art. And, another reason for the no was that the city seems to think there are no artists in Ann Arbor going outside of the state for their art pieces.
Carole
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
Jeremy - thank you. I'm pleased to hear that at least one of our fine artists is being represented.
Jeremy Peters
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
Mary Thiefels, whose mural was just installed in Allmendinger Park, is an Ann Arbor (and Michigan resident).
Barzoom
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:41 a.m.
City Council, listen to the voters. Repeal the percent for art.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:32 a.m.
And Councilwoman Higgins needs to review the results of the Art Tax vote from her 4th Ward. I think voters here spoke very clearly about their wishes on this topic.
Beth Wilson
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.
Thank goodness for Jane Lumm! She seems the only one watching out for the tax payers. The City of Ann Arbor seems to waste vast amounts of money on non-critical items like art and Heiftje's "green" boondoggles. If it is important for a college town to have art how about the "college" with its $7.8 BILLION endowment foot the bill? Why should it come from tax payers? And can someone tell us why Ann Arbor is not helping pay for animal control related services nor has it even come up on an agenda, as reported in an earlier article, when they are one of the biggest users of the service? Why is it okay for our government units, some of whom think they have money to burn, to rob from the coffers of the humane society? It all seems rather backwards.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:28 a.m.
"When we represent our constituents, we don't represent only those who agree with us. We represent those who disagree with us," Briere said. "We don't just represent the majority. We represent all the minority voices as well. I would really like an opportunity to hear those minority voices." Beautiful. Ms. Briere, why don't we put the Per Cent For Art up for a public vote? If the Councilwoman doesn't think the recent millage failure was a direct result of the fiasco of the recent projects slipped through under this program (City Center Water Fountain, City Center Shiny Glass Project Behind A Metal Detector), both of which were championed by the Ann Arbor Public Arts Commission supporters like Margaret Parker and Marsha Chamberlin, then she needs to get out and talk to the voters of the 1st Ward. She's beginning to sound like the Mayor.
a2grateful
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:25 a.m.
First, refund the criminally misappropriated dedicated milage funds. . . Then, let a discussion occur. $2,200,000 will fix many potholes and flooding neighborhoods. We have faith that the newest council representatives will buck the longstanding hostile and derelict incumbent regime, and their poor, indefensible, and self-serving decision-making.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:18 a.m.
Kailasapathy: "questioning whether art is valuable or not, whether art should be funded or not. No, that's not the issue."................. Pssssst. That IS the issue. Cut the funding. Briere :"We don't just represent the majority. We represent all the minority voices as well. " ............Unless of course, those voices, minority or majority don't want to waste any more money on this program.
bunnyabbot
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.
I was under the impression that when it was put to a vote then the majority's voice were the ones that matter most, period. Otherwise all those that didn't win the elections should also be sitting at the table.
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 1:03 p.m.
Waste of money is an appropriate term for a fund that has two million plus dollars it and the council decided: " one of the first recommendations is to boost the public art administrator's pay." http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-city-council-public-art-work-session/
timjbd
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 12:19 p.m.
It's not a waste of money. The Statue of Liberty is public art. The Lincoln Memorial is public art. Mt. Rushmore, The St. Louis arch (not my favorite but popular), Strawberry Fields, all public art. You or I may not like every piece of art commissioned but that's to be expected.
A2comments
Tue, Nov 20, 2012 : 11:15 a.m.
They're starting to listen. Why not put the question to the voters, on the May ballot?