The Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, which has been mentioned in several posts, recently launched Legacy Destination weekends that will be held throughout the year to showcase projects and organizations that have received funding through the amendment. Each month, one community in the state will feature activities such as arts performances, fishing tournaments, tours of historic buildings and towns, trail walks, and other activities held by organizations that have been supported by the amendment. The weekends, which are being organized by Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, Conservation Minnesota, Explore Minnesota Tourism and local community groups, are an opportunity to celebrate the amendment and also showcase how the fund has helped improve the state’s outdoors and arts and cultural assets.
While the amendment is still in its infancy, having been passed in 2008, there is still the need for public awareness to show how the funds have been used to benefit the state so far. This comes at a time when Minnesota is facing a $6.2 billion budget deficit and legislators are looking for any ways they can to fill the gap – including impeding on the Legacy Amendment (despite the wording of the law that says amendment funds “must supplement traditional sources of funding for these purposes and may not be used as a substitute”). While this is a serious concern, the good news is that there are many different types of stakeholders who came together to pass this amendment and who would be willing to defend it.
Minnesota’s Legacy Amendment is a good example of how to bring together multiple interest groups to help reach a common goal – supporting the organizations and projects that make a place special. This is why several Ohio organizations are looking at doing the same type of thing in the state. And this same type of collaboration can be used in Cincinnati’s discussions on how to brand the city – it can’t just be about the arts or baseball or the parks or Fountain Square. But it can be all of these and more.
When talking about what makes a place unique, it seems that arts messages have a better chance of being heard when they are built into a larger dialogue with other types of advocates (whether it be the environmental folks or historical supporters or others). Ohio seems to be on the right track and hopefully Cincinnati will take note.
I attended the city council meeting on February 16th. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend a meeting that pertained specifically to the arts. This meeting was perhaps not the best to judge the city council by as it was very brief and did not go into detailed discussion on the items. Roxanne Qualls, the vice mayor of Cincinnati, ran the meeting. It began with resolutions to honor two citizens. David Allen was honored for his work as music director at St. Williams church since 1961 and a "David Allen" day was proclaimed. So at least the arts were mentioned in some small way! Then the recently deceased Roberta McClain was recognized for her work in Cincinnati and her widower was given a certificate in honor of her. While these recognitions were very nice, they seemed like empty gestures made in front of an almost empty room just for the council members to be able to say that they honor local citizens.
After the pledge of allegiance the business portion of the meeting began. There were about 30 items on the agenda and for the most part they were run-through very quickly with just yes or no votes. I was surprised and became very wearisome of how many times they had to go through the yes/no process. There was only real contention over one item. One of the council members was upset that it didn't pass because a member who had promised to vote yes was not present. I was never clear where she had gone, on a bathroom break or been called away for a moment, but she came back and there was a call to re-consider. With her there the motion did pass. Item 27 was a motion to help the Clifton IGA work with local tax officials to be able to re-open. A council member made a speech imploring the passage of this motion by talking about the 50 jobs that would be restored if IGA could re-open. It did pass. The meeting was wrapped up with announcements by committees about upcoming meetings and birthdays.
I was surprised how little discussion there was about any of the motions. I expected there to be more argument over passage and to get to hear more about Cincinnati politics. I have since watched pieces of other meetings in the online videos and it appears that more of that usually happens. Perhaps it didn't on this day because the mayor was not there, or maybe all the items just happened to be very straight forward. I was also surprised by the process that had to be repeated over and over and over again when passing items. This kind of thing is what defines bureaucracy negatively in my mind. However, it was very interesting to go and observe the process of local government. So much emphasis is put on learning how the federal government works, but it is the local government that most impacts our day-to-day lives and this is the first time I have ever seen it at work.
Last week I attended the Quality of Life meeting at City Council with several other classmates. Tom Mariner of Express Magazine gave a very compelling and intelligent presentation about the Cincinnati arts scene that I found both inspiring and disheartening in many ways. His presentation brought up many good points about the way that Cincinnat is viewed by "outsiders" and residents alike and as a future arts administrator, I believe that they way we approach these factors could truly affect our the success of our organizations. I'd like to discuss several of Mariner's key points here and how they relate to the arts.
1. Cincinati Chamber Website
Mariner points out that the Chamber website promises that Cincinnati has "Something for Everyone!" which really translates to most readers to mean there is "Nothing for me." The "something for everyone" catchphrase means we really don't know who the hell we are as a city, and therefore, choose to take the easy way out. People are attracted to activities that make them feel special, where they can express their individualism and uniqueness, yet also feel that they are part of a larger group on some level. The arts has this ability. Vast experiences, repertoire, and interpretations of performing and visual arts allows audience members to express their individuality yet still participate on a group level. Tom Mariner is right. The arts would be a GREAT solution to this problem.
2. CinciUSA.com
This website claims Cincinnati as the "Arts Mecca of the Midwest." I have to say, I agree. Where else in the midwest (besides Chicago) can you find a Tony award winning regional theatre, one of the top 10 orchestras in the country, an opera company that attracts the biggest names in the business season after season, ...that is just the bare surface of what Cincinnati has to offer. However, no one knows it. What is Cincinnati known for? Not all of this great arts and culture, (which, considering the size of the city is pretty freaking remarkable) but it's ragtag losing football team which can't seem to keep it's players out of jail. And the Reds. Alright, I'll give you that one. Sometimes the Reds actually make me proud to live here. But only sometimes. The arts, however, make me proud to live here ALL the time. I constantly find myself defending Cincinnati to people who call it the "Nasty" or complain that there isn't anything to do here. When I do go into defense mode, I find myself using arts as the prime example. Since the city itself seems to be focused on promoting the aforementioned sports teams (which aren't really doing much to improve the nickname of CinciNasty, I should add) it seems to fall to US to promote the arts here. And by us, I mean all lovers of the arts. Why is it that our society chooses to see a losing football team of criminals as a necessity, but the arts, which promote communication, community, and enligthenment are seen as expendable? (Thesis paper anyone?)
3. Branding
Mariner talks about how Cincinati should use the arts as part of the branding of the city. In his presentation, he describes that branding involves: 1. A story 2. A promise to be true to who we are 3. A unique set of assets and attributes.
Once again, Mariner is right on the money. The arts provide all of these things for Cincinnati. Certainly more history and better stories than anything else in this city, with the exception of Oktoberfest perhaps. The arts and arts leaders in this city are always true to who we are (we have to be-we actually have missions and all that crazy stuff) and certainly the arts provide a unique set of assets and attributes.
Recently, The Columbus Foundation and AMS Planning and Research from Fairfield, Connecticut completed a study focusing on the sustainability of the arts market in Columbus. Unfortunately, the Columbus market was given the lowest ranking of "Viable" which means the market has the capability to function in the short‐term, but is limited in the capacity to adapt and grow.
The study examined the Columbus arts market over a 10 year period (1999-2009), and found a few distressing signals. The study found that there has been major drop in earned revenue in the sector, with a decline of 27.3% ($4.8 million). Corporate contributions increased by a mere $285,000 (5.0%). The study was also able to better analyze the Columbus market by comparing to 14 other similar cities. Using this data, they found that per capita public sector support in the arts in Columbus is well below average in the benchmark cities. Using national benchmarks, the arts sector is undercapitalized by $100 million.
Interestingly, Cincinnati was included as a benchmark city and was rated as "Sustainable", meaning the market has the ability to meet present needs, but also to generate enough resources to deliver on mission in a changing environment. Four benchmark cities were rated the highest rating of "Vital", which means there is access to sufficient resources to allow the organization to fulfill its mission, reinvest in its future, and maximize its public value by evolving to meet future needs: Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Kansas City. I found this comparison extremely interesting, as I was unaware the arts markets in nearby cities like Indianapolis or Cleveland were so strong.
The timing of the release of this survey is interesting because it aligns in some places with the supply and demand debate stemming from Rocco's comments (which has been discussed at length on this blog). The study found that the four "Vital" cities had a few important things in common:
Sustained philanthropic leadership, especially from institutional donors
Dedicated tax revenue streams; often both on the local and state level
There has been a successful alignment of goals and messaging with broader civic objectives
Collaborative arrangements to increase awareness and sales, such as centralized event calendars and cultural district collaborations
The sector has permitted contraction, i.e., some arts organizations have closed their doors
This finding is very interesting, and shows that perhaps Rocco Landesman is on to something with his comments about supply and demand. Other markets might take note of this study and really look at where there can be some consolidation. At the very least, organizations (especially small-medium sized organizations) should continuously examine whether there are opportunities in their market to create partnerships that will allow sharing of resources and capital. This is a healthy practice for any industry.
Another of the important characteristics of the vital markets was that they had dedicated tax revenue streams. This shows that it important for arts organizations to continue to appeal to their local and state governments for support Columbus Foundation Press Release
Like several of my fellow classmates, I also attended the Quality of Life committee meeting last week and listened to Thom Mariner's presentation on the idea of branding Cincinnati by promoting its amazing depth and range of arts and culture experiences. Thom's presentation was very convincing and made a great case for showcasing Cincinnati's arts to people outside of Cincinnati. I won't go into the details of that presentation because my classmates have done such a great job of describing it already.
There was one part of the meeting that did stand out to me, however. This was when councilwoman Quinlivan explained that some people had the idea that Cincinnati should be branded as the "Birthplace of Baseball". She suggested tying in Cincinnati's baseball history with our arts scene and promoting that Cincinnati has "Major League Arts". I don't think that this is the correct way to frame a message about Cincinnati's arts and culture to the rest of the world. Using sports lingo to promote the arts seems like the wrong approach to me because in the battle of sports vs. arts, unfortunately sports will almost always win with the majority of the U.S. population. Attending a sporting event is a completely different experience than attending an arts event, and the customers of the two different types of events often value different things.
Overall, I don't think that tying a sports reference to Cincinnati's arts will be helpful in promoting them. It muddles our message and doesn't help us to focus on the diversity and quality of the arts in Cincinnati, which is a major strength for the city.
As Ohio’s statewide arts advocacy service organization, Ohio Citizens for the Arts works to secure public funding for the arts. Discussions of slashes to the National Endowment for the Arts continue in Washington, and the advocacy efforts of organization’s like Ohio Citizens for the Arts are critical to retaining as much of the NEA’s budget as possible. The organization is focused on its mission, and it is attempting to affect policy in a new way.
Five Ohio organizations have joined forces to form the Coalition in support of “Protecting Ohio’s Heritage.” The Ohio Citizens for the Arts, Friends of the Ohio Historical Society, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio League of Conservation Voters, and Ohio Soil and Water Districts are the first of other potential organizations that may participate in this effort. The Coalition states,
“There are few things that make Ohio a special place, that improve our lives and help define us. Our arts and culture, our land, our lakes and rivers, our history; these assets are the core of what it means to be an Ohioan.”
The goal of the Coalition is to create a statewide ballot issue that will dedicate revenue to protect Ohio’s arts, culture, historic, and natural assets. This policy mirrors the Minnesota’s Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, which passed in November of 2008. The amendment stated that the sales and use tax rate would be increased from 6.5% to 6.875% on taxable sales until the year 2034—revenue which would be decided to protect drinking water sources, land, arts and culture organizations, parks and trails, and bodies of water. 19.75% of the new revenue created a new Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, which generated about $8 million in FY2010 and $54.5 million in FY2011.
If a similar amendment were passed in Ohio, $26 million could be generated to preserve Ohio’s arts and cultural heritage. The Coalition is currently in Phase I of their policy work. This includes such actions as research, polling, and focus groups to gather public opinion; legal research to draft ballot language and rationale; and economic impact analysis from a variety of sectors within the Coalition. The group is also utilizing strategy and communications firms to lead the process.
Again, like Arts Power Chicago, we have another example of collaborative advocacy in an effort to support the arts. In this case, the collaboration involves organizations that have a range of interests that collectively support not only the arts but also parks, natural resources, and historic sites. The research and analysis going into the process is deliberate and inclusive, which will hopefully help garner public support for the proposed ballot issue.
Last week I had the opportunity to attend a City Committee Meeting, as other 5 lovely classmates did so I am afraid I might not be able to bring anything new to the table. Having said so, it was a very interesting experience for me since we do not have that in my country. I do not fully understand what the process is or how is the project going to work or when, where and why did it started.
However, what I did find very valuable about the experience were the arguments on why the city of Cincinnati has to support the arts. I strongly believe in the power of city branding and I believe the art is a very valuable asset that should be exploited as such. That’s actually what really caught my attention. He was talking about the emotional connection people make with a city, in this case Cincinnati.
The argument Mr. Tom Mariner made about the city not having to spend more money or resources on the arts but rather take advantage on what the city has to offer, just let the rest of the people know what the unique assets of Cincinnati are. Show them what makes Cincinnati so special, what the city does best, differently, the pledge of satisfaction the city makes to its citizens and visitors.
I hope the city council finally decides to support this project it seems like a win-win situation, the arts will be better appreciated by Cincinnatians and the city will benefit not only by the intrinsic value of art but also for the economic impact that branding a city as an arts community has such as tourism, creation of jobs, and of course the ripple effect that comes with it.
During a recent Cincinnati City Council Quality of Life Committee meeting, a discussion continued about creating a brand identity for Cincinnati – this time focusing on the city’s arts and cultural assets. Thom Mariner, co-publisher of the arts publication Express Cincinnati, presented before the committee, asking the question, “What is the brand essence of Cincinnati?”
For example: Bourbon and racehorses = Kentucky, but ? = Cincinnati.
When people think of Cincinnati, what do they think of? Mariner presented this question and went on to describe how the city’s unique and diverse arts organizations can be incorporated into the city’s brand identity. The part of his presentation that intrigued me was the question of whether or not we should talk about the arts in terms of entertainment when promoting Cincinnati as a destination. I thought this was interesting in light of all the discussions on how the arts benefit communities beyond simply entertaining people – instead highlighting how the arts shape a community’s unique culture and bring people together. It is in this context that the arts can be used to help describe the “essence” of Cincinnati and aid in attracting visitors and residents to the city.
But this means positioning Cincinnati’s arts to mean more than just a night out, but rather as one-of-a-kind experiences that you can only get here. And it’s going to involve many people in changing how the arts are perceived and used in describing Cincinnati. One of the first examples that comes to mind is the way the arts are positioned on the Cincinnati Enquirer’s website. Like many major newspapers’ websites, the Enquirer includes arts news under the “entertainment” section of its website. So this mixes Cincinnati-specific arts news with comics, games and the latest celebrity gossip – not the best way to make Cincinnati’s arts stand out. The city’s major daily newspaper seems like a good place to start in repositioning Cincinnati’s arts and cultural sector.
Other changes will likely be needed as Cincinnati looks at creating a brand identity. In his presentation, Mariner suggested moving away from words like “playful” and “fun” in promoting Cincinnati tourism, as these seem to better fit places like Las Vegas. Rather, he suggested we talk about the community’s rich history in its arts and culture, unique landscape/environment and diverse neighborhoods.
Overall, Mariner’s presentation was well received by the committee and drew supporting remarks from area arts professionals and advocates. It will be interesting to see how this discussion of Cincinnati’s brand identity will evolve and how the arts will be included.
Last week I sat in on a Quality of Life Committee meeting at the Cincinnati City Council. I have to admit this experience was pretty different from the image I had concocted in my mine. I was under the impression that decisions were made at each meeting and that all the City Council members would be in attendance. Turns out I was wrong.Had I put two and two together, I would have realized that committee does not equal full council.The concept of “committee” didn’t really resonate with me before sitting through this meeting.Good thing every moment is a learning opportunity…
The meeting itself was very interesting.The agenda included a phenomenal and thought-provoking presentation by Thom Mariner about branding and the lack thereof for the City of Cincinnati.Citing all the great things about this city has to offer, Mr. Mariner showed the council how Cincinnati does not need to invest much money into creating a wonderful culture because it is already here. After listening to Mr. Mariner highlight the strength of the arts scene here in Cincinnati, I actually started to like this city.The power of good marketing is pretty impressive.
After Mr. Mariner’s speech, the committee allowed for commentary from individuals who had filled out request forms before the start of the meeting.Hearing different Cincinnatians from all walks of life talk about how the arts were important to them AND to the city was inspiring and oddly comforting.It was really encouraging to see so many people in attendance to the meeting.
So what did I learn from this experience?Aside from finally connecting that a committee meeting does not require the attendance of all City Council members, I learned that Cincinnatians really care about this city and that Cincinnati has a lot to offer.Too bad, no one is marketing that.
At the February 1st meeting of the Major Transportation and Infrastructure Projects Sub-Committee of the Cincinnati City Council, Lea Eriksen, the city’s Budget Director, and Stephen Samuels, Governing Board member of Bridging Broadway, presented research and plans to develop the half-mile radius around the new casino, which broke ground three days later and is scheduled to open in the end of 2012. Bridging Broadway is a non-profit whose mission is to “maximize the new casino’s positive effect on Greater Cincinnati by connecting stakeholders, sharing concerns, and promoting opportunities.” This group of creative professionals, business leaders, and urbanites has been conducting small and large-scale research and hosting community dialogues with residents, business owners, and landowners. At the time of the meeting, the organization was 4 months into Phase I with final documentation to be complete at the end of March.
The presentation opened with discussion of the project’s vision and guiding principles. The vision is to “develop a pedestrian oriented mixed-use and mixed-income environment that will promote economic development and connect the surrounding neighborhoods around the casino site as a vibrant entertainment destination.” Seven guiding principles were chosen to facilitate the vision:
Create and promote complementary uses around the casino site.
Develop the casino site as an aesthetic compliment to the existing historic districts and neighborhoods and their surrounding area.
Create a green setting in terms of streetscapes and landscapes.
Preserve scenic views from Mt. Adams.
Create and reinforce a strong sense of place taking inspiration from the existing arts and entertainment venues and the visual and historic character of the area.
Create strong multimodal connection corridors for all users.
Foster a diverse, welcoming, pedestrian-friendly urban character.
The neighborhoods included in this development are Pendleton, Over-the-Rhine, the Central Business District, Mt. Adams, and Mt. Auburn. The large-scale research done by Bridging Broadway is focusing on the question of “How does the casino relate to its surrounding geography?” The organization is studying transportation routes, housing, land use, and commercial districts while thinking about marketing, branding, and inventory. Samuels said, “We don’t want to cannibalize what already exists downtown.” They want to find complimentary uses that synergize already existing offerings and potential new businesses. The idea of a mixed-use environment includes residential, retail, and the arts and entertainment.
Their four main objectives regarding the district are to complement existing activities, eliminate the edges, fill the gaps, and explode the program, which refers to exploding the 100,000 to 150,000 square feet of non-gaming uses—restaurants, retail, bars—that exist around the exterior of the site by complementing them with public art, street entertainment, streetscape improvements, and more.Bridging Broadway is hoping that these developments would provide an experiential perspective that could lead casino-goers through five proposed routes: arts corridor, entertainment corridor, streetcar line, Fountain Square, and Egleston.
Bridging Broadway is also proposing the creation of thematic districts, one of which is being called the Entertainment District. Its focus would be the 24/7 lifestyle that will be spurred as a result of the casino. The problem is that not everybody locally or regionally can relate to or will use the casino. There is no broad appeal. Further, the casino is insufficiently linked to downtown’s existing destinations. The solution is to use the “explode the program” idea to promote a “multi-use destination in and around the casino site that meets a broad range of consumer demands.” Developments in this district could include commercial revitalization for local and regional tastes, special events, emphasis on complementary entertainment-oriented uses, new development of surface parking and vacant lots, streetscape improvements of primary corridors with wayfinding, clean and safe programs, branding and marketing, public art, and street entertainment.
Bridging Broadway’s proposed solutions are essential to create cohesion between the casino and the community it lives in and the residents it will affect. By developing the surrounding area, the casino will not remain isolated. The synergy will energize the city. Further, what a great way to promote the high-quality arts and culture that Cincinnati has to offer! The Entertainment District and the Arts Corridor route, which travels up Pendleton to the Pendleton Arts District and down 13th to Main Street, feature many historical arts and cultural institutions. Adding public art or street entertainment would only add to the aesthetic experience that community members and visitors could get. These developments would attract not only casino visitors by bringing them out of the casino and into other parts of the city but also Cincinnati area residents who may not normally venture into these areas.
The next Community Dialogue will take place on March 12th, and it will focus on implementation. I’m sure additional presentations to this sub-committee will occur, and it will be interesting to see proposed budgets for the project. Certainly it will take a lot of capital to actually realize these ideas, but I think the enhancements are well worth the investment.
By now everyone is very aware of the headlines that have been coming out of Kansas concerning the Kansas Art Commission and Governor Sam Brownback's proposal to end state funding to the KAC. The Governor has proposed to turn the KAC into a privately funded nonprofit organization and give it $200,000 to get started. While just this proposal is very concerning, I think there are a couple of positive things that can be taken from the reaction that has come out of it.
First of all, it seems hopeful that the Governor's proposal will fail. It has already been rejected by the Kansas House Government Efficiency Committee and is up for approval in the rest of the House. The supporters of the Art Commission have shown that ending the funding will lose the state twice as much money from outside sources, around 1.2 million dollars. Numbers are something that administrators do understand (no matter how hard we try to make other criteria mor important to them) and these numbers are difficult to argue against. In a 500 million dollar deficit, cutting a program that brings money into your state is an easy decision to ridicule.
And ridicule it people are! The numerous articles I have read are all attacking the Governor's proposition. Some focus more on the monetary side and some focus more on the cultural impact that the cuts would have, but the media is supporting the Art Commission. The extremely negative gesture that the Governor has made, seems to be turning into a lot of positive support for the arts. Hopefully this publicity is making people aware of the danger the arts are in and more and more people will show their support for arts organizations and their funding.
One final positive, is that in many articles, creative ways to finance arts funds are being offered up. Hopefully this will make government authorities and the public alike realize that education and welfare don't have to suffer for the arts to thrive. If some good publicity for the arts comes out of this attack, it can turn into a positive for arts organizations.
In 4 states-Texas, Kansas, Washington, and South Carolina-governors have recently proposed completely cutting state arts agencies. We have seen an alarming trend of cutting budgets of state arts agencies recently, but this new idea of completley eliminating arts agencies altogether seems much more drastic. Not surprisingly, this idea has launched campaigns in states across the nation in an effort to save government arts funding and show the importance of the arts in our communities. The Arizona Commission on the Arts, for example, recently developed a campaign with the picture and phrase below:
"Kids will leave their mark, with or without the arts"
With the concept of "student matinees, training programs for teachers and administrators, " and "efforts to bring cultural events into inner cities and rural communities" in jeapardy because of these propsed cuts, it is more important now than ever before to focus on arts advocacy. Ken May, executive director of the South Carolina Arts Commission says: "It's a basic idea of our democratic society that if something is really beneficial to people, we should do our best to give everybody access to it. That's the reasoning behind public education, public parks, public libraries, and public support for the arts."
Some governments have proposed that these arts agencies become private non-profit organizations. However, this has usually been suggested with the (incorrect) belief that the "wealthy patrons" will be able and willing to fund the deficit created without government support. Clearly, for-profit and government leaders do not understand that the typical donor wants to fund the spectacle, the exciting project, the show of the century. Not the operating costs or helping to pay the water bill of the local theatre, which is what some government funds help to provide. Jonathan Katz, CEO of National Arts Agencies, had this to say of the government handling of arts funding:
"The arts are the golden goose, and we lay some pretty great eggs for our communities. economic impact, education, tourism, cultural understanding, civic engagement. At times I feel like our elected officials have their hands around the neck of the goose. They don't realize they're killing an industry that is forward-thinking, creative, and helping our state recover."
Since we are the leaders of the forward-thinking and creative industry, let's start working on how we can best change the funding model for our organizations to prevent this type of situation from becoming the expected and accepted.
If you had the option of paying your taxes, would you choose to pay them? What if your local government asked you to make some sort of payment to help with services like police and fire protection, would you help?
There has been a growing trend of local governments asking tax-exempt organizations that own property to make voluntary Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) as a substitute for property taxes, which nonprofits are generally exempt from paying. There are about 100 cities in 18 states that collect some type of PILOT. Boston, for example, has one of the most established PILOT programs and collected $15.7 million in 2009. Much of this amount came from universities and hospitals, although some arts and cultural organizations also paid in, including $99,400 paid by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. According to a 2010 report by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy that researched the PILOTs in Boston and around the country, there are some major issues with these efforts. For example, the report found that “PILOTs are often haphazard, secretive, and calculated in an ad hoc manner that results in widely varying payments among similar nonprofits. In addition, a municipality’s attempt to collect PILOTs can prompt a battle with nonprofits and lead to years of contentious, costly, and unproductive litigation.”
Another study done in Minnesota – looking at how PILOTs would affect the state – found that PILOTs would only work in a few cities, as many nonprofits don’t own property. However, some Minnesota cities do charge fees to nonprofits to help cover city services they use – Minneapolis has a street lighting fee and St. Paul charges a right-of-way assessment fee for snow removal and road maintenance.
At a time when local governments are struggling to pay for basic services like police and fire departments, I can understand how they might look to programs like PILOTs to find ways to fill in budget gaps. However, this would likely only work for a few larger organizations that own property. And it raises the question of equality in determining who should pay and how much.
I fear that by infringing on nonprofits’ tax exemptions, people will get the wrong perception about why nonprofits deserve certain tax breaks and start demanding more from them, even though they save the community money by providing services that the local government would otherwise provide. This was the case in Peterborough, N.H., when the Peterborough Board of Selectmen challenged the tax-exempt status of The MacDowell Colony – an arts organization that provides an arts-in-residence program on its 450-acre property – when the nonprofit refused to provide a PILOT. The MacDowell Colony took the case before the New Hampshire Supreme Court and won, however perceptions about the organization’s benefits were likely hurt in the process.
Even if nonprofits are willing and have the capacity to help out their local governments by providing PILOTs, they face the risk that the government will put pressure on them to give larger amounts – currently happening with Boston’s PILOT program. Many nonprofits are already stretched thin and still providing great community benefits, so how much more can we really ask of them?
Okay, let's be honest with ourselves, Reagan was a terrible President. He lied in office (Black welfare queens stealing the little white lady's money), he had horrendous economic principles (trickle down, 'nuff said), he tripled public debt, a racist (Reagan gave his first post-convention speech, near one of the most iconic civil rights murders in history (Philadelphia, MS), where he opined about "states rights"--weren't state rights used for the maintaining of Jim Crowe?), and an opponent of the NEA.
I could write this entire blog about why Reagan was the worst president, ever, but I will just focus on his ineptness and the decrease to the NEA.
He was the first president to decrease the NEA (while gov't spending rose by 25%, even though republicans will deny it). He wanted to privatize the public-sector, which kinda seems like an oxymoron. Since Reagan's dynasty of terror, the NEA has never recovered.
"At a Reagan-birthday banquet Friday in Santa Barbara, conservatives gathered to party like it was 1980. In her keynote speech, Alaska half-term Gov. Sarah Palin blasted what she said was out-of-control growth in government spending today.
It's often hard to know what Palin is talking about, but she couldn't have been talking about the arts. The NEA's current budget stands at a puny $168 million, less than when her idol left office. Inflation adjusted, that's a 48% decline in NEA spending since Reagan went to Washington 30 years ago"
Oh, Reagan, how some historians are trying to give you a face lift you do not deserve.
Well, it's not like I was ever planning on living in Kansas. But, to make my point even clearer, yet another republican governor has cut local funding for the arts. Kansas Governor, Sam Brownback, has cut the $600,000 that the state allocates for the Kansas Arts Commission.
I for one am in favor of cutting the arts. The state of Kansas cannot afford to waste their entire budget on the arts. With a 500M dollar budget, cutting funding to the arts will clearly put Kansas back in the black. The government should not be wasting my hard earned tax dollars on the arts, clearly they have no impact on the state; it is not like it attracts tourism, or contributes to society. It is just one more thing that once the government cuts will disappear, because I am tired of the government fully funding these organizations. We do not want to be like socialist Canada.
The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has called upon the state senate to cut funding to two state agencies, the Texas Commission on the Arts and the Texas Historical Commission. Without delving into the my issues with cutting the THC, I am vehemently opposed to the cutting of the TCA. The TCA is a funding organization that provides support to local arts organizations. The TCA affects 2.2 million Texans across the state, and is used to help smaller organizations attract tourism into their local rural towns. The elimination of the funding could be opposed in Washington, but significant cuts are to be expected.
The most fascinating facet of this concept is that by cutting workers, and detracting from the quality of life of that wretched state, you will some how create more money.... Apparently basic economic principles escape Gov. Perry, such as the fact that cutting money from the economy (which will inevitably reduce jobs) is not good for the local GDP, nor does it "balance" the state budget.
I tip my 10-gallon hat to you, Mr. Gov, and the logic that you provide the lone star state.
There has been a great deal of talk lately about supply and demand in the arts sparked by Rocco’s recent comments. I have been struggling to decide where I stand on the issue and would like to share a few thoughts, and even more questions, after reading Diane Ragsdale’s Jumper blog entry Supply and Demand Redux.
I agree with Diane Ragsdale that it was an important issue to bring up and deserves close examination. It seems to me that there needs to be a better way to measure demand. Most of you probably know more about how this is measured than I do, but I suspect there are many people who would like to be partaking in the arts but are unable. The first reason that comes to mind is cost. I know I would very much like to be attending the Cincinnati ballet’s production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream this weekend. But with tickets starting at $35 and seats that you would really want starting at $65, there’s no way my graduate student budget can manage it. I suspect there’s a huge number of people who would like to visit art galleries, a play, or a musical, but simply can’t afford it.
I also wonder how free performances impact demand. How many people’s demand for the arts are met by all of the free orchestra or chamber music concerts provided by CCM? How many parents pass on going to the Cincinnati Shakespeare Company because their child’s high school just presented Hamlet? They know the quality isn’t nearly as high, but it was free and convenient, making it “good enough”.
Both of the above reasons are extremely difficult for professional organizations to compete against. The symphony can’t let everyone in for free, nor can they present at every local high school. However, how to compete against these things is not the issue here, but rather whether these things are adequately factored into demand. Or if they even should be.
So now having wondered about all these things, I find I am still divided on whether there should be less supply or not. The one thing I am sure of is that there should be more oversight deciding which organizations receive government funding. This is an incredibly complicated issue on which it seems there are too many individual interests to ever be resolved adequately.In a perfect world, each organization would have responsible leadership that knows when to shut the doors and move on, but doesn’t give-up too soon. Being successful in the arts certainly takes a great deal of perseverance. This is of course a dream world that will never exist, but at least it provides a goal to work towards.
And on a closing note, if the Superbowl’s halftime performance is any kind of example of the “art” that the country is typically exposed to, we should all work extra hard to promote arts organizations in any way possible.
I just received an e-mail that I found very interesting. I do not know how I got it but I did. I would like to share it with those invested in the Arts and the different organizations that support it at the national level. As responsible citizens that care about the arts and the public policies I believe it is important to read it, share it and act when possible.
Dear Ana Paula,
We need your help.
The new majority in power in the U.S. House of Representatives is taking an axe to thecurrent 2011 federal budget in an attempt to bring it down to levels from three years ago. That alone would cut irreplaceable National Endowment for the Arts funding to state and local nonprofit arts groups by at least $27 million immediately.
However, 175 members of the Republican Study Committee, an independent but powerful arm of the GOP party, are pushing even further by unfairly targeting total elimination of many programs that you and I care about. Elimination of such federal agencies as the National Endowment for the Arts would cripple support for nonprofit arts and culture programs in every city and state across the country. It would no doubt quickly impact the livability and economic vitality in your community as well.
Help us prevent attacks to disproportionately cut these federal agencies and programs:
National Endowment for the Arts and for the Humanities, funding arts organizations throughout Ohio
Arts Education Programs, which fund local model projects through the U.S. Department of Education
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS stations throughout the country and are strong supporters of arts programming
Today reading my twitter I stumbled upon a great campaign that the Mexican Ministry of External Relations, along with Mexican artists, Mexican artistic institutions and the French government and French artistic institutions are launching this year. I am talking about the program “The Year of Mexico in France” a program that will use as a motto “Discover the other side of Mexico”.
The idea of this project is, which will include about 160 events including movies, exhibits, literary events, and concerts to update and correct the idea that people from other countries, in this case France, have of Mexico. The whole project revolves around five axes: economy, culture, tourism and gastronomy, education and science cooperation and environment.
“The year of Mexico in France” has been created to promote the artistic work that is happening in Mexico, trying to let aside the violence that is happening in some cities but that have been impregnated into most of the news about Mexico.
The exhibits presented will include, the gigantic sculptures titled “Nuestro Silencio” (Our Silence) from Rivelino, the “‘Rostros de la divinidad. Los mosaicos mayas de piedra verde” (“Faces of divinity.Mayan Mosaics on greenstone”), “Tamayo y Mexico”, “Diego y Frida” (a Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo). Music will be represented by the conductor Alondra de la Parra and Rolando Villazón. Cinematography will include works by
Some of the cities where these events can be enjoyed are Paris, Burdeaux, Marseille, Toulouse, Lyon, Rennes, Arles, Le Mans, Metz, Brest, Nantes, and Lille.
11 Chicago-based arts organizations have teamed together to create awareness of the importance of arts and arts education during the 2011 Chicago Mayoral Election. The coalition is called Arts Power Chicago, which has been spearheaded by Arts Alliance Illinois and includes such organizations as Urban Gateways, Lawyers for the Creative Arts, and the Chicago Cultural Alliance. Arts Power Chicago is advocating not only the economic and tourism benefits of the arts but also their intellectual value, power to connect people, and global reach.
The coalition developed 6 Principles for a 21st Century Creative Chicago, which outline a charge to the Chicago arts industry and City Hall to facilitate a partnership so the arts can lead Chicago’s development into a “more competitive, resilient, and sustainable global city.” The first three principles touch on economic vibrancy, bringing together communities, spreading the arts throughout cultural districts and neighborhoods, and positioning arts education and making it accessible to all Chicago students.
The last three principles ask the Chicago government to expand arts opportunities so all Chicagoans can participate; to partner with the private sector and the arts industry to create a strategy for economic development that is inclusive of creative industries; and to give the arts industry a seat at the planning table regarding such issues as neighborhood revitalization and tax and business policy. Each of the six candidates for mayor—Carol Mosely Braun, Gery Chico, Miguel del Valle, Rahm Emanuel, William Walls, III, and Patricia Van Pelt Watkins—has signed this document, essentially promising to make the arts a priority during his or her term as mayor.
It is promising that all the candidates have shown their commitment to the arts and to giving the arts a voice in city policy. Yes, for certain candidates, signing the document may just be a way to satisfy voters; however, I think the signatures can be leveraged strongly once a new mayor has been elected. I believe that this collaborative approach to advocacy will have a strong influence on policy in Chicago. There certainly is already a partnership between the arts industry and the government, specifically the newly merged entity that is the Department of Cultural Affairs and the Mayor’s Office of Special Event; however, I think this document is asking for more than a partnership between the sectors. It is asking the city government to include the arts sector in policy decisions, including the development of a new economic development strategy. For the arts industry, that’s huge. According to Ray Jo, Executive Director of the Arts Alliance, Emanuel and Chico have set up panels to create a plan to help the arts industry so if either of them win, steps will already be in place to support the six principles. If one of the other four candidates wins, you can be sure Arts Power Chicago will persuade the new mayor to create a similar panel.
