Art of road repair
I am all in favor of “the arts.” I’ll even visit a museum from time to time. However, I am concerned about this idea that somehow the arts have anything to do with road repair.
The politics of our federal government has worked its ugly way to local politics.
If a special-interest group wants money, the group attaches it to a nonrelevant but necessary funding bill to guarantee members get their money.
It may have made sense to make a statement that the arts will get a percentage of some tax in the past. Maybe someone on the arts council was also on the City Council.
Maybe it was a way to keep them happy then — promise something later.
To vote no to the road bill means you are happy with the condition of the roads. Or maybe it means you don’t think the arts need money at this point in time.
Here’s a thought — how about somebody with the arts telling the taxpayers exactly what the group would do with the money. Then be required to use the money for those purposes only.
Give us a reason to vote yes to the roads and to the arts. Otherwise, we may say no to both.
We may end up with bad roads, but we won’t end up with taxpayer-sponsored bad art.
Remember the winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art in 1987? The National Endowment for the Arts funded the artist’s picture of a crucifix in a bottle of urine.
That’s bad art.