El Paso Arts Advocate, Katherine Brennand (who
is also a member of the PSB)
fought for a 2% for the Arts ordinance for years. Cities all over the
country were already funding arts in this manner - some at 1%, some at 2%. In
fact, the federal government passed a law (as did the State) years ago that
required that any construction paid for with state or federal funds had to set
aside a certain portion for public art. Beginning in the 90's, Katherine
began efforts to see El Paso take similar action. Such an ordinance
eventually passed although, under Mayor Joe Wardy, it skipped and jumped
around, and the ordinance changed from including revenue bonds to not including
Certificates of Obligation. But in 2006 City Council finalized the 2% ordinance
to include ALL bonds. Therefore, any municipal construction would include
2% for Public Art. Now Council is being asked to consider waiving that source
of funding from the Street Infrastructure Capital Plan. An ordinance will be
introduced tomorrow (Item 5A on
the Agenda) with public hearing tentatively scheduled for June 26th. One hopes
Council will deep six this matter now. The introduction to the ordinance
suggests that in lieu of the 2% requirement, "street construction projects
will incorporate a public art component as part of the design." (See attachment to
the agenda item.)
Ms. Brennand writes:
"The commitment has been made that, if the 2% is waived for 6
years, then, in lieu of that requirement, the City would incorporate art into
each of the reconstruction projects. The
rationale is that when the larger Quality of Life bond issue is presented in
the Fall, Public Art will be adequately funded.
An alternative, suggested by the mayor, is to reduce the 2%
to 1%, given the size of the obligations.
Any responsible,
committed arts advocate will question these proposals for the following reasons:
- Without a doubt, having a
2% for the Arts Ordinance is quite enviable, although many, many cities
across the country have this same ordinance. In El Paso’s case, it took about 20
years of hard and consistent work to achieve this goal. Once the 2% is suspended for any reason,
and for such a lengthy time, it will be extremely difficult to get it
reinstated….no matter the promises.
- How can the City be
promoting a Quality of Life bond issue, and, at the same time, want to cut
a fundamental funding base of Public Art?
- This sends a message to
our artists, to our community, and, most importantly, to our children,
that the arts can be funded whimsically….or not.
- It sets a precedent. Even if the 2% for the Arts is
reinstated in 2019 (!) what is to keep this from happening again?
- If the City is making the
commitment to incorporate art into the road construction projects, which
will cost money, why not leave the 2% in place and let those monies pay
the expense?
- 2% of these bond issues is
a minuscule amount compared to the city’s needs. Is it being said that with the 2% going
to the arts that it’s too much?? If
that is the case, why aren’t we intelligently discussing alternatives that will keep the 2%
ordinance, but will augment/enhance
how we are using it? Perhaps
the amendment should include salaries and/or administrative costs
for the Public Art program. Why has
there not been an opportunity to discuss proposals that could greatly
benefit the community and the City?
- The 2% for the Arts from
bond issues is the ONLY source
of funding for this program. As we
know, bond elections happen every few years, not once a month. Budgeting for the Public Art Program is
difficult. Administrative costs for
the program cannot be taken from the 2%.
That means cash flow for the
program can be compared to a roller coaster ride. Without bond elections,
the monies from the 2% for the Arts diminish quickly.
- El Pasoans seem to be very
excited about a Quality of Life bond issue. The economic impact from it should be impressive This city is on the move….things are
happening….we are “growing up”… young people are excited! Suspending the 2% for the Arts for any
reason at this point is completely regressive and will not be well
received. Reducing it from 2% to
1% is even worse.
The arts are NOT the icing on the cake . . . they are more
like the flour and butter. They hold us
together, soothe our souls, lift our spirits, give us hope. It is a known fact that some children stay in
school and do not drop out because of their interest in an art form - theatre,
dance, painting. It is also documented
that children who are exposed to the arts score significantly higher on the ACT
and SAT. It is the creative output from
the arts that we leave to future generations: the terra cotta warriors and
horses from Xian, China, rock art paintings and murals that have endured for
thousands of years, the renown works of Renaissance painters, the output of
great literary artists, the great architectural edifices. The list is endless.
So, why do we EVER
diminish the importance of artistic endeavor???
But we do! We are doing it right
now with the proposal to suspend the 2% from the streets infrastructure bond
issue. And, here’s a question. Can we afford to make this cut? The answer is simply: 'NO, WE CANNOT!'"
No comments:
Post a Comment