February 04, 2005
Brightwater Art Update

Ron Logan, who originally alerted me to the Brightwater art issue, attended the project's open house last night, and he's passed on some good news and some bad news:

The good news is that they aren’t spending $16 million on art for the Brightwater facility. The “1% for Art Program” is, as is any government program, much more complicated than taking the entire budget and setting aside 1% for art. There are caveats. For instance, incidental items like furniture aren’t counted in the eligible budget amount. Mitigation costs and the cost of environmental studies are not counted. And most-important for Brightwater, structures and devices specifically not available to the public are not counted. So all the underground drilling and pipe-laying for which the Brightwater project will be paying does not contribute to the budgetary amounts that the 1% is levied against.

The bad news is that the eligible funds still total $430 million dollars: the Brightwater project will be spending $4.3 million dollars on artwork for their sewage-treatment facility. That’s still $4.3M of public funds, taken from taxpayers, which could’ve otherwise gone to education, or to roads, or to any of the myriad of other projects more important to society than art. Or even -- dare I say -- left in the taxpayers' pockets to begin with.

To their credit, though, they’re not talking about just plopping down the cash on statues and paintings. They don’t have any concrete plans yet (pun intended), but the majority of “art” is going to be woven into the architecture and design of the entire facility. Things like gardens, salmon habitat, tree-lined wooden walkways, etc. One of the more interesting items is a tall odor-mitigation exhaust stack at a Bothell pumping station made from crushed recycled glass and animated with fluorescent lighting effects. Very cool stuff, no doubt, but everything they showed was fluff. Yes, it’s all very pretty. But government spending should be frugal and austere. It’s not government’s job to take money away from citizens in order to purchase pretty things. It’s government’s job to ensure that we all get a decent education. It’s government’s job to pay for a police force to protect us. It’s government’s job to build sewage treatment plants to provide sanitary living conditions – but it is most-decidedly NOT government’s job to make those facilities into beautiful art-filled parks.

I’m still outraged at the extravagant spending of this project. It may not be as bad as $16 million, but $4.3 million is still an awful lot of money. It’s too much money on feel-good accessories while our essential services make due without.

My main problem with this issue is--beyond the vast sums of money involved--the fact that Snohomish county residents are subject to the funding whims of King County. If this was a Snohomish County project, we'd only be talking about $2.15 million--still a considerable sum, but a good deal less, and it would actually be in line with the laws of the county that the structure is being built in. But thanks to Ron for getting to the bottom of this situation.

Posted by Timothy Goddard at February 04, 2005 09:51 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Where's Tim Eyman when we need him?!

Posted by: bmvaughn on February 4, 2005 10:19 AM
2. Thanks for looking into this issue altogether and for the update.

First, I would like to point out the statement that government has the responsibility to "ensure we all get a decent education." Interesting pre-supposition, but probably the subject for another day.

I would like to make this comment a mild counterstatement to his conclusion. I do think it is important that public projects are done in an aesthetically pleasing manner.

Square, concrete, bomb shelter type buildings may be the most economical and practical alternative, but that isn't necessarily the right answer.

If something has to be done, it should be done well. Even if it is the government that is doing it. People still have to work at this sewer plant, people still have to drive by it, and in fact people may actually want to visit. So making an aesthetically attractive sewer plant that is an amenity to the community is not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by: j on February 4, 2005 10:19 AM
3. J-- I wouldn't argue, and I don't think Ron would either, that aesthetics should be completely ignored in favor of economy. But I don't think that setting aside huge sums of money for "public art" is the answer, either. Things should be designed to be attractive, and if that takes a bit more money, so be it. But an overall attractive design is better than dotting an ugly design with various small pieces of art of dubious quality.

Posted by: Timothy on February 4, 2005 10:35 AM
4. I just still can't get over the fact that King County is putting a major sewage treatment plant - FOR KING COUNTY SEWAGE - in Snohomish County...If you ask me, it stinks.

Posted by: Scott on February 4, 2005 10:38 AM
5. "I do think it is important that public projects are done in an aesthetically pleasing manner."

The plant architect will take care of that. The County wouldn't select one without being wooed with gorgeous colored drawings and 3D models and volumes of politically correct blather.

There's no reason to tie pink ribbons on it, or a mural of Ron Sims. It would look better without. And realistically, unless the County wastes yet another vast wad on non-functional gimmicks that don't treat wastewater (like cute fish ladders and promenades), there's no reason to think the public will ever visit the place to experience artwork.

Arts funds (if they MUST be extracted from an unappreciative public) are 99% wasted on sewage treatment plants.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 4, 2005 10:43 AM
6. Just as an aside, structural engineering for a project is typically estimated at 0.75% to 1.5%. I always roll my eyes when the art budget exceeds the engineering budget.

Posted by: Rick on February 4, 2005 11:01 AM
7. Who are these artists profiting from the $4.3 million anyway? Quite possibly contributing members of society, who probably pump most of their profit right back into the economy to pay for materials, supplies, self promotion, insurance, health care etc., not to mention having to pay for years of training and hours of hard work on things that may or may not sell.

I agree that every penny of taxpayers dollars should be spent wisely, but don't fall into the uneducated myth that says that art is just fluff. Good art is a very valuable part of our culture, societ and history.

Posted by: Judy on February 4, 2005 11:33 AM
8. Who are these artists profiting from the $4.3 million anyway? Quite possibly contributing members of society, who probably pump most of their profit right back into the economy to pay for materials, supplies, self promotion, insurance, health care etc., not to mention having to pay for years of training and hours of hard work on things that may or may not sell.

I agree that every penny of taxpayers dollars should be spent wisely, but don't fall into the uneducated myth that says that art is just fluff. Good art is a very valuable part of our culture, societ and history.

Posted by: Judy on February 4, 2005 11:33 AM
9. Who are these artists profiting from the $4.3 million anyway? Quite possibly contributing members of society, who probably pump most of their profit right back into the economy to pay for materials, supplies, self promotion, insurance, health care etc., not to mention having to pay for years of training and hours of hard work on things that may or may not sell.

I agree that every penny of taxpayers dollars should be spent wisely, but don't fall into the uneducated myth that says that art is just fluff. Good art is a very valuable part of our culture, societ and history.

Posted by: Judy on February 4, 2005 11:34 AM
10. I absolutely agree with Judy that art is an integral part of our society. I love art. I spent way more money buying art than I'll admit. Art is a valuable part of our culture. I'm not dimissing art as irrelevant -- I'm saying there are more important things that are being ignored by this law, in favor of art. That is just plain wrong.

Art, though, should not be forced upon anyone. If an artist wants to spend his life creating art and selling it to willing buyers, he is a great and noble person. I, for one, look up to such people and support them with my own money when I can. But I do NOT support government money going to them. Private money -- YES! I do it myself. Public money -- NO.

By the way, Judy -- would it surprise you if this "uneducated" person has a degree in Literature? ;)

I also agree with "j" that "aethestically pleasing" is desirable. I'm not looking to build Soviet-style blockhouses. But neither do I think an animated, lighted smokestack is a wise choice for public funds.

Posted by: Ron Logan on February 4, 2005 01:02 PM
11. Just so all of you know, the $4.3 million could NOT be spent on roads or schools etc. The taxpayer will pay for it through their sewage rates. Because it is tied to the wastewater fund, the money can only be used for wastewater purposes. Yes, they could also collect $4.3less and keep the rates down.
For what its worth, I think setting aside a portion of the cost of public capital projects for art is a good thing, especially if integrated into the design of the structure. But there needs to be flexibility on the 1% figure. The really massively expensive projects are things like sewage plants and dumps and you can only dress them up so much.

Posted by: john on February 4, 2005 01:13 PM
12. "Who are these artists profiting from the $4.3 million anyway?"

The successful contenders for these 1% funds could be anyone from anywhere. They may be artists, but there's no guarantee of it.

The sort of individual who invests hundreds of hours into the politics of the selection process and gets the commission may not be nearly the artist who puts those hours instead into creation of something lovely. Funny the legislation mandating the diversion of taxes to such contenders is unable to ensure that the 'best' artist (not application-submitter) receives the commission.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 4, 2005 02:00 PM
13. john is incorrect. Well, *technically* the check from King County for $4.3 million can't be used for roads. But what I mean by that statement hits at the very root of government spending: it ALL comes from the same place: THE TAXPAYER -- or the rate payer, or whomever.

That's the problem with this thinking that "hey, it's earmarked for art, so let's spend it!" If it wasn't earmarked for art, it could have been earmarked for anything else -- or not even brought into the government coffers at all.

Government spending is government spending. We cannot let ourselved forget that government spending -- ALL government spending -- boils down to just one thing: spending OTHER people's money.

Posted by: Ron Logan on February 4, 2005 03:43 PM
14. "It's governments job to make sure we get a decent education." ???? Huh???

Since when did education stop being a duty and start becoming a right?

"For lack of knowledge the people perish." God

What incentive do government educators have to teach about the principle of limited government?

Der's a whole lot of lack of thought going on out der.

Posted by: Jericho on February 5, 2005 07:08 PM
15. There's more than that

Did you know that King County is planning to impose a discriminatory Project Labor Agreement on brightwater?

What this means is that you can only be eligible to work on the construction of the plant if you're a member of a union, or promise to become one within seven days!!

Compulsory union membership, and contributions to the union trust funds and pensions, if workers don't stay union forever--they'll never see a red cent of their mandatory retirement contributions--they'll be forfitting them to the union bosses.

Only 20% of our local construction workforce is union! King County is handing this huge golden egg to Labor on a silver platter!
It must be nice to have friends in high places.

Posted by: Jessc098 on April 12, 2005 01:51 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?