Yes, being by definition a “public art” endeavor it suggests that it’s a publicly funded program in some fashion, be it by taxes or not. The agency is, or rather was, a department within Miami-Dade County. Still, tagging on the “tax” message certainly is a precedent for misconception and was thrown in without full account of the facts–I don’t care who reported it. Ad valorem taxes are strictly prohibited as part of the ordinance and the program has never been supported through the county’s General Fund.

Joe Public always gets “pieces” of information and ends up being the subject of much confusion. Incomplete reporting also discriminates against management that executed their duties to the best of their abilities, but were stimied by the incompetence of predecessors and the total lack of support by upper management.

Ultimately, it is a signature program that has suffered and the Miami-Dade community that has been short-changed to accepting an extremely watered-down version of what was a model program to the nation. You get what you ask for, and Miami-Dade is so impoverished culturally that I’m afraid no one will be able to tell the difference. Meanwhile, let’s go ahead and promote those Britto shirts at MIA. It’s just what Miami-Dade needs and the masses want.

http://miamiartscene.blogspot.com

Thanks
JC

If you have issues with the statement that the program is funded by taxes you might want to contact Daniel Chang of the Miami-Herald who originally reported it as a “tax-supported program”. Then contact Charles Saatchi of The Saatchi Gallery & USA Today for either repeating or validating his article. Also CBS 4, NBC 6 & Local 10 for reporting the same article via the Associated Press news wire post which went around the world. I am quite honored that you came here first though.

Also as you stated and the Miami-Dade “art in public places” State website is quoted in agreement to an extent with you:

“One of the first public art programs in the country, Miami-Dade Art in Public Places was established in 1973 with the passage of an ordinance allocating 1.5% of construction cost of new county buildings for the purchase or commission of artworks. Art in Public Places is overseen by a citizens’ Trust appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.”

Being a % for art ordinance does not in my opinion (not being a tax lawyer here it might not stand for much) exclude it from being considered a publicly funded art program.

Also shouldn’t the issue be more so the lack of oversight and organization and not the status of it’s funding? I would think your outrage would be best served in supporting that end?

The “General Fund monies” approach could only hurt and alienate the public you want to be in the process cause all they will hear is “It is the public’s fault that we can not keep tabs on the art we have but if you gave us more money we could find a way not to lose it in storage”. John Q public living on the Tamiami Trail in Miami will want the director replaced and not more money added to the budget. If they are forced to make a choice I bet you dime over dollar that the decision will be to close it down and fold it into a existing department.

If you’re going to blog, then please get the facts straight. The program IS NOT funded by taxes, the ordinance does not allow for that. The program is a percent for art, which funds are derived from new building construction. This is specifically the problem with the maintenance issue, and as was noted in the article “General Fund” monies could help subsidize the “regular” maintenance of the collection.