When We Paint Our Masterpiece
Comments
Leave a commenti like your chops as a writer, mike, but i think you can greatly condense your essays without sacrificing your argument.
One huge change over the past few years is our Hotel selections from The Mansion, Hampton Inn and Embassy all new rooms, these properties did not replace other rooms and they are running higher than national occupancy and commonly sold out completely. And now Lafayette is next. I wish the County Executive race would have addressed Tourism budget, it is currently half that or even less than cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland and the like. Tourism is a growth industry for Buffalo and we need to feed it.
the Heidelburg Project in Detroit
I like the direction we're taking here with the arts as change agent for Buffalo, but I think if we're relying solely on the arts to make Buffalo a destination, we're reaching in the wrong direction.
My hope is that Tourism (bolstered by the recent success of the preservation conference and continued support from Toronto and Southern Ontario), Education, and Medicine will transform Buffalo. I get really tired of the same stupid snow and wings comments. Guess what, it snows in the Northeast and we all have wings, but let's stop defining (actually, pigeon-holing) a city because of these things.
I see the arts more in conjunction with the progress we're making in these other areas. So that when people come to Buffalo to visit the Albright-Knox, they come back because of the Elmwood Village or Canalside (once it's the destination it's promoted to be)).
The arts should compliment the progress we're making in other areas, but we also need to do a much, much better job of promoting our history. One of the richest cities 100 years ago, and I can't find a historical trail that directs people through that history. That's a shame and a big failure on our tourism bureaus. Start there and use the arts in conjunction to build a rich experience for both locals and out-of-towners.
Farrell>"If they were recognized as such, funding debates wouldn't break out during election seasons"
I couldn't disagree more. Similar to how there's supposed to be separation of church and state, there's no reason we couldn't have separation of arts and state.
That doesn't mean churches and arts aren't considered important, but they're highly subjective topics (which religion? which art? etc) and there's no need to force taxpayers to fund certain ones and not others.
Everything in life that's important doesn't necessarily have to be paid for by government and taxpayers.
The successful fundraising effort this past year by some arts and culture organizations around here after county funding cuts proves the point that voluntary donations can be raised. Ticket pricing, merchandise sales, and other creative (pun not intended) ways of monetizing can supplement donations as well.
An extra benefit is there'd never be worries about the government removing or threatening to remove funding for any art or culture that's complained about by any portion of the public. So it would help encourage artistic freedom.
Everything in life that's important doesn't necessarily have to be paid for by government and taxpayers.
Ticket pricing, merchandise sales, and other creative (pun not intended) ways of monetizing can supplement donations as well.
Great idea. Start with city/county roads. Buy a mug: fix a pothole. You'd be okay with that, right?
Paul, although city/county politicians do spend some taxpayer $ to construct publicly-owned roads/bridges which everybody equally owns and may use any time they want for any travel purpose, then spends to maintain them for public safety…
it's my understanding politicians aren't supposed to spend taxpayer $ for privately-owned roads of private sector (for-profit or non-profit) groups.
Examples are all around us. Around L.A. no doubt there's roads owned by arts/culture organizations such as movie studios, and on grounds of mansions owned by arts/culture practitioners, none of which are given taxpayer $. Around WNY, private roads of Mighty Taco drive-thrus, or on private golf courses, or on land owned by the WNY Catholic diocese and perhaps other religious organizations, or… on and on.
In all those examples, roads are indeed funded by business models (perhaps even your idea of mug sales happens in some small way, but certainly sales of products/merchandise and services), and in some cases by voluntary fundraising (collection plates, bingo, lawn fetes, etc.).
Whatever, obviously, my snarky comment was in response to what you consider important. Because you don't value arts/culturals, you don't think your taxes should cover expenses for those organizations. Your argument of encouraging artistic freedom by denying funding is a good attempt to camouflage your views, though.
Yes, Paul, it looked like you were being snarky and making a point with which I disagreed - all at once. Congrats for multitasking.
Hopefully my two comments communicated that there isn't total overlap between everything that any or even all individuals consider important vs. what taxpayer $ should be spent on, and that there's a difference between the private and public sectors.
I'm getting thirsty at the moment, but no matter how important that is to me I promise to not suggest Erie County start subsidizing a few government-selected beverage businesses among the many here. The private sector can provide them, even though it's important.
I don't think you'd have a difficult time finding a variety of beverages even in the worst of times. On the other hand, cultural organizations provide a singular experience that cannot be measured as simply as the pint for which you thirst.
Toss out your beer for a moment: do you think the government should stop spending taxpayer dollars on medical/scientific research, space exploration, etc? Are you in the Ron Paul mold of not spending on anything but the common defense? Where is your libertarian line in the sand?
"I don't think you'd have a difficult time finding a variety of beverages even in the worst of times."
Nor would anybody here 'have a difficult time finding a variety of' arts & culture, regardless of whether the few dozen govt-selected groups in question start receiving taxpayer $ again.
I suppose I should say when now not whether, after the election result. But none of them disappeared in the past year while Erie Co funding wasn't provided, and it still might not be provided in the coming year depending on a veto or override. The private sector fundraising of those groups grew, reportedly. And that doesn't even mention all the arts & culture that never received any public $. How much govt funds for example has to be given to Nietzsche's or acts that play there every night of the year? Zero, you say? Hmm. How is that possible? At the larger end of the spectrum, how much govt $ is handed to Regal cinemas? None? How can they keep doors open?
Whether some of you will admit it or not, by far most arts & culture here large and small happens within the private sector (for-profit & non-profit). Just like with corporate welfare to some in the 1%, there's claims from some of what gloom & doom would happen if a relatively few arts/culture recipients weren't chosen by govt for public subsidies. Doesn't add up. Even with years of public subsidies, Studio Arena eventually closed. People who used to buy tickets for that now are likely choosing some other cultural stuff from the very wide variety available. There's no scarcity.
Even with years of public subsidies, Studio Arena eventually closed.
Because it closed it proves that public dollars were wasted? Sorry, faulty logic. Studio Arena, in its prime and with the assistance of public dollars, produced some of the best theatre in the country. Certainly, it was internationally recognized and it was a catalyst for activity downtown. At the time, a public investment paid off.
You don't acknowledge the importance of quality in your argument about quantity. I'll let you return to your lite beer.
No, even if it stayed open the public $ to SA would be wasteful. Point about closure was the set of arts/culture orgs will always evolve - some end, some start - and customers (not politicians) should make choices based on what they like.
SA's customers very likely didn't stop attending arts/culture stuff after it closed. There's a big market for all that.
So, even if some of the few arts/culture orgs who Erie Co politicians have selected for subsidy past years have become truly dependent on taxpayer $ and can't survive without it (which seems not so, btw - those few all survived a year and might get a chance to try the same thing next year - depending on Collins veto)…. then others who start and grow would fill the void, attracting customers from any who close just like some perhaps attracted people who used to attend at SA.
Opps, forgot questions.
paul>"stop spending taxpayer dollars on medical/scientific research, space exploration, etc?
Are you in the Ron Paul mold of not spending on anything but the common defense? Where is your libertarian line in the sand?"
Much more than for arts/culture, some things are more feasibly owned by govts than only private owners. Of course it's subjective (saving Arm from having to say it). And some things change as history marches (post office seems moving toward end some day). Others might always make sense for public ownership (police). As for streets, who knows what might happen with technology. Maybe eventually streets can be privately owned or at least more strictly user-funded.
Space exploring would've been delayed many decades if govt had stayed out of it, but it would have happened. I don't have a strong feeling either way about govt hurrying it along. Separate from long dist exploration, satellites helped with many big public/human needs that couldn't have happened as fast privately (communications, arms treaty verification, weather detection, etc). There wasn't a similarly good or better private sector alternative to develop those as there is for things like corp welfare to Paladino-Croce-Termini, or to a few arts/culture groups, and so on.
Importance isn't the distinction. Cars are more important than space ships, but GM/Chrysler bailouts were dumb.
Besides, future of humanity might depend on moving to other planets if Republicans are allowed to melt us all here with carbon they keep burning while everyone else begs them to stop. So maybe good if govt doesn't delay inventing space travel asap!
Besides, future of humanity might depend on moving to other planets if Republicans are allowed to melt us all here with carbon they keep burning while everyone else begs them to stop.
Thank you for pandering to a few of my sensibilities. Have a good evening.
Whatever> "Of course it's subjective (saving Arm from having to say it)."
I was going to bring up subjectivity while you were arguing government services that you don't like, in this case funding of the arts, ought to be funded privately while services you like should receive taxpayer money.
Seems inconsistent and subjective, especially for someone who fancies himself as consistent and objective, but I was going to stay out of your discussion.
arm>"I was going to bring up subjectivity"
See, I knew.
Of course all political arguments are subjective on all sides - even the sides you favor.
Everything Obama advocates about spending & taxing are subjective, but I'd bet you don't try to dismiss or minimize his views for that reason the way you seem to be trying about those you disagree with.
Same goes for views of Poloncarz, the "Occupiers", Cuomo, BR writers, and so on - all subjective as are mine (unless any of them favor spending for any & all possible ideas ever proposed - which seems unlikely)... yet I've never noticed you calling them out for subjectivity.
About "inconsistent"... if someone ever says 'no' about one idea for govt spending proposal and 'yes' about any other, then ok it's inconsistent. To be consistent that way would mean always yes for every govt spending idea ever suggested [fill in any joke here about Albany or D.C.]
Or always no could be consistent too.
Given that pretty much anyone's views by that definition are inconsistent and are subjective which goes without say, what can make debates more interesting is what objective reasoning people use to decide when yes and when no. One way could be to say yes/no according primarily to if the spending is in an urban or nonurban area.
For another example, some argue that in our system there should be a big difference between targeted taxpayer funding (not purchases) being given as gifts to politician-selected private entities like a few developers or a few theater groups, etc. compared to funding of publicly-owned things like police, public schools, roads/bridges, snow plowing, fire fighting, etc.
In a very different system such as nations where businesses & arts/culture are all publicly owned by govt, that distinction won't exist.
There's a parallel between that and our separation of religion & govt, compared to nations in which religion & govt are combined. That doesn't mean as a people here nobody considers any particular religion "important", just that govt shouldn't give taxpayer $ to it.
What's so awful about looking that way at private sector things such as a select few upscale housing projects like Paladino's, or live theater groups, or non-polular music orgs like the BPO, or restaurants, bars, ...?
I'd wonder are there any types of things you'd say govt $ shouldn't be spent on even if it happens in an urban area? There must be, but what are some examples and the reasoning for them?
I would agree with you if you also agreed that gov't should not be subsidizing or spending any money at all on sports teams or real estate developers and their wants and desires.
Yes, Rand, you and I agree on all of that.
Although I don't see why if I didn't agree with you in opposing public spending items B and C then you'd really suddenly disagree with me in opposing spending item A?
As it turns out, it sounds as though we both disagree with public $ gifts for private stuff, but not everybody is as consistent. I'll accept even partial agreement with me when it happens (rare on here!)
Not that easy Rand...The City/County own properties like Coca Cola Field, R. Wilson Stadium, Sheas, Klienhans, kind of hard to say they should not invest in these buildings and the long term viability of the tenents that use the them. These are not just athletes and artists being propped up by government dollars they are employment of hundreds or thousands of local residents that in return spend paychecks and payroll taxes locally.
Leave a comment
Sponsor
Recent Comments
Sponsor
Interested in advertising on BuffaloRising?
E-mail John C. Powell
or call John at 716.602.0200




Big word in this article is the first word of the third paragraph, "BUT." This is a thinly-veiled rant and way too long an editorial for my liking. I'm tired of stories that initially inoculate the reader with some good news then give the bad news ad nauseum. It's so predictable. I need to feel good about my city today and this ain't doin' it.
if you really are a doctor then take two aspirin and call yourself in the morning.