Vacation’s over. I’m back to work.

The funds from which % for “Art” dollars have been taken are generally restricted to some specific activity. Take, for example, storm sewer funds. Four times a year each property owner is charged for the amount of runnoff his/her property theoretically dumps into the storm sewer system. These user fees are intended to cover the cost of draining rainwater/snowmelt away from foundations and out of streets. Council, in its infinite wisdom, have decided that it is OK to use these funds for something other than draining runoff i.e., “Art”. Their argument is that as long as the subject matter is correct, it is OK to take our sewer fees and use them for not-maintaining sewers. The legal justification for this has never seen the light of day. When you ask for it, the reply is something like “Oh, you must be an art-hating barbarian. Just trust us, barbarian: we know, and you don’t”.

The claim was made that the city attorney wrote a memo detailing the legal justification for this diversion of restricted funds. Is there a reason that we, who paid for it, cannot see the memo? As a bonus, I’d like to see it without being called names by elected officials and their appointees.

From many of the projects Ms. Chamberlin has supported in the past, this would be a refreshing improvement. She should immediately apologize to every third grade artist in the City.