City, Demucrat mislead Woodlanders about public art policy; pro-developer antics stifle APP process
Here are two links to articles written by the master of misinformation Jim Smith of the Dooly Democrap:
'Jumping jet' fountain planned at new car wash on Kentucky Avenue
Colorful murals planned for new Rite Aid building
Both articles allude to a "public art policy" of which the City of Woodland has none. Here is the sum total of the art requirement for developers:
Design Standards for Commercial Development
Site Planning for Commercial Development Standards
10. Incorporate public art into the development of at all commercial and industrial projects. Public art is subject to the review of the Planning Commission or other such body established by the City Council. (City Council to review Public Art policy from Woodland Art Center)
Read an article about this at the Woodland Record. The article includes council member's positions on the issue.
Posts
4 comments:
Sound like we are going to have two 5x5 foot professional drawn display of GRAFFITI on the new Rite Aid building on W. Main St.
11:11
Regardless of what people think of the artwork (good or bad), the problem is the policy, or lack thereof.
A true policy, like most other neighboring cities have, will define what public art is and will define how much a developer contributes, how the fees are used, and how the public provides input.
City staff has dragged their feet on this since 2002. After six years, the APP ordinance was about to be approved late last year but staff "needed to review it" once again... as if the last six years of staff review weren't enough time. A year before that staff tried to put an old version of the ordinance before council... but the withdrawal of that from the agenda caused further delay.
This last draft revision (the most recent) includes a 25% discount for developers. Those working on the APP had never heard this mentioned before in any shape or form. When WAC questioned it, Dan Sokolow agreed with the logic and made the APP fee uniform. Munowitch and Deven made him put it back in but have not once provided an explanation of why. Without any logic behind the decision, that only leaves the rest of us to surmise the motive... so be it. The discount is a clear example of pro-development at the expense of public benefit.
WAC representatives have been patient and compromising during this whole time. The ordinance has been subject to the whims of city attorneys, city staff, commissioners and council members and WAC has bent on each version that the others presented. Enough is enough. It is clear city staff wants to have control over negotiating decorations on development sites. Right now there is not set amount that developers need to contribute... it is all subject to staff's arbitrary, sliding scale. And the public has no chance to look at what "artwork" is or where it should be place.
Seems to me that in these economic times the timing may not be right to put this ordinance, and its costs, however small, as such a high priority for our city.
7:49
The APP is funded by development fees to mitigate the impacts of urbanization, growth and reduced services. Developers are already paying something for "public art," but it's based on an arbitrary, sliding scale subject to an arbitrary negotiation process according to individual planners who don't know about public art.
The current "requirement" for public art does not include a public process, unless you include the rubber-stamping by the planning commission made up of people who also do not understand public art.
The problem with the current sliding scale is that it is not exclusive to public art. There is no comprehensive fee schedule or builders checklist for developers. Every development project is subject to a shoot-from-hip "negotiation" process that is not only unfair to the developer, it's unfair to the public.
The bottom line is the APP would not cost the city anything and it would be more fair to developers given a set percentage.
Priority? How about multi-tasking as a concept. An ordinance has been ready-to-go for six years. The city has made it a priority to stall it or get rid of it but council has said many times it wants it. And given there are theoretically less building projects in the city because of the economy, you'd think that there would be some relief on the "priority" list.
Post a Comment