Duboc, Winkler explain stand on public art Duboc, Winkler explain stand on public art (September 08, 2004)

A burden for small businesses

By Lee Duboc

I voted to send the "1 percent for art" ordinance to the Planning Commission for possible repeal after reviewing the information provided to us by staff that demonstrated the tremendous burden that our art ordinance places on small businesses.

For example, project improvements of $750,000 and $730,000 were subject to a 32 percent and 34 percent increase, respectively, by what the city calls "post-entitlement fees." In the case of one commercial project, the increase in fees was an amazing 49 percent. The last thing we want is to discourage small, citizen-serving businesses from locating and upgrading in our city.

If we as a community value art, then it is time for every sector of the community to bear the burden equally. Los Altos has a policy in which artists donate art to the city on a rotating basis for two years. The artists pay for transportation and insurance, and in turn have the chance to showcase their works, all of which are for sale. The city prepares and provides a site and advertises to the art community. The citizens choose the art from the many applicants.

Alternatively, we might vote as a community to self-impose a small fee if our city attorney can find a way to do so, with the proceeds used to pay for public art.

I am committed to having visual, public art for our city that joins the concerts and classes the city now provides. Yet, no city ordinance should be so burdensome on one segment of our community. Public art enriches our entire community, and thus the burden should be shared equally.

Lee Duboc is mayor of Menlo Park.

Tweaking can't save flawed ordinance

By Mickie Winkler

In my opinion, the art ordinance which the City Council has sent back to the Planning Commission has multiple defects which tweaking cannot fix. I believe this ordinance should never have been passed.

* It is built on the backs of small, new businesses, which is not acceptable. It should be supported by the community, through a tax or the general fund.

* It is based on the faulty assumption that art will pay back to the business because businesses do better where there is art. However, a new or remodeling business is typically overburdened with projects and costs. One percent or 1 1/2 percent is a lot at startup time, could be put to more productive use, and is enough to turn the project away from our town.

* The 1 percent does not cover several costs the businesses must bear including all its administrative costs in complying with the ordinance, time spent in searching for and dealing with the artist, and so on. Furthermore, the ordinance burdens all successive businesses on that site, with maintenance of the art in perpetuity when defacing or wear and tear occurs, as it will. Staff defines its costs as 15 percent. Surely business will spend more administratively.

* The selection criteria are onerous and limiting. The requirement for amount spent on art is based on dollars spent, not ultimately on taste or quality. Rembrandt as a budding artist would be excluded from most projects if his art didn't measure up to the required amount.

This six-page ordinance cannot just be tweaked because it is not designed for or organized around in-lieu payments. In any case, it presupposes that new business bear the cost of public art, which, I restate, is counterproductive to the economic well-being of our community.

On the positive side, a process similar to that used in Los Altos model provides a win-win. It benefits the community because it is relatively low cost: The city provides a base, a plaque, and advertises for artists. Community members and/or commissioners select the art from applications. The artists bear the cost of transportation and insurance. They in turn get to sell and showcase their work. And every two years the art rotates, which provides interest and vibrancy for us all.

The Mountain View Model, which one of the arts commissioners praised, is also a good model, as I understand it. In Mountain View large public projects costing over $1million are assessed a 1 percent fee, and private projects are given incentives to provide art--not forced, unless, for example, they request a zoning change. There are few stipulations other than the work be "significant."

We are now about to embark on a public-hearing process regarding our public art ordinance in which these ideas and others will be publicly discussed. I look forward to the discussion.

Mickie Winkleris a member of the Menlo Park City Council.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.