Comments on: Public Art Projects Move Forward

By: Susan Wineberg

Susan Wineberg — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:44:47 +0000

I wish there was more attention being paid to the halls of Old City Hall. There is nowhere to sit and a bench would be great opposite the Kamrowski murals so that they could be viewed in a relaxing way (some of us need that!). The walls of the halls are very blank and uninviting but are heavily used by the public. This would be a good time to take stock of public spaces that need some public amenities.

By: JamesJefferson

JamesJefferson — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:53:01 +0000

i cannot believe that $400,000 is being spent on Art for the Stadium bridges. Just because the money was siphoned off of the project and exists is no reason to spend it. And of course it is going once again to out-of-state artists. Sure, the bridge is ugly, but still… as the saying goes, “you can’t polish a turd.” Not even with $400,000 worth of polish. What ever happened to saving?

By: Mark Koroi

Mark Koroi — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:01:47 +0000

The One Per Cent For Art Ordinance is a bad piece of legislation and needs to be abolished.

It is also questionable whether it is even legal.

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:33:48 +0000

The five-member city council committee working to develop recommendations for the city’s public art program deserves our gratitude. They took on the thankless task of trying to understand what voters meant when they rejected the public arts millage. The arts millage, of course, was offered as a means of curing the defects in the percent for art mechanism that, among other things, diverted restricted funds for public art.

I hope Council will learn from the failed arts millage ballot proposal to use more care in crafting ballot language. For example, the Council has made a commitment to allow voters to vote whether to support a new train station. That ballot proposal needs to be clear enough so whether it is approved or rejected, the Council will have clear guidance on how to proceed. I can imagine a poorly drafted ballot proposal that would allow voters to reject the Fuller Road site for the station but leave unclear whether voters support building a new station at a different location.

By: TJ

TJ — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:07:05 +0000

So this anonymous donor is only giving 10% towards the cost of the chair memorial, and will withdraw it if their conditions are not met. Why doesn’t anyone have the courage to say “thanks but no thanks”? Is it common for a 10% contribution to drive an entire project?