Geof’s thoughts on the Seattle Art Museum’s involvement with the upcoming Parks and Green Spaces Levy.

This article was written by Geof 

Parks and Green Spaces Levy: SAM hijack update
Here’s how bad an idea it is to give the Seattle Art Museum 11 million dollars out of the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, just submitted to City Council last week.

Even the PI Editorial Board, long a supporter of “big money” institutional public funding, opposes SAM funding in the levy, for good reasons.

Among the better quotes:
“The museum’s inclusion feels forced, lacking any true tie to the levy’s overarching themes of a green city, healthy communities and vibrant neighborhoods.”

Absolutely correct.

The PI also, rightly, cites a rapidly sinking local economy as a good reason to keep the levy as realistic and efficient as possible, thus helping November passage. It offers reasonable alternatives for SAM funding – there are several more that bear mentioning later.

Personally, I prefer the 11 million go to restoring those many projects cut citywide for SAM’s truly grotesque power play. SAM’s efforts demonstrate “old Seattle politics” at it’s worst: At a time when many on Council are allegedly embracing the new “Obama” era of transparency, accountability and hope.

Aren’t voters sick and tired of back room deals for special interests at great cost to the public? That’s exactly how the SAM funding apparently came about – from some very surprising sources, as I’m beginning to discover. Obama voters will rightly vote for Barrick, but likely will not vote – if informed – for very old ways of doing things.

The SAM deal sounds so very “Bush/Cheney” to many of us!

With Council telling everyone not to expect new funding in the upcoming city budget, shouldn’t this levy be as focused and efficient as possible, particularly if Council and greenies want it to pass?
So why should we tax ourselves for SAM, short change the rest of the city, while Council and Mayor cut services in the next budget?

“Do as say, not as we do?”

There are many, many more reasons to get this very bad idea out of the levy: Here are just a few.

11 million is by far and away the single biggest specific project funded in the levy - a levy advertised to fund parks, recreation and green spaces - for a building that just happens to be in Volunteer Park yet serves no park functions.

For a building housing the laudable but private non profit, fee to enter, Seattle Asian Art Museum, operated by SAM, but has nothing to do with Parks, Green Spaces, or Recreation.

The 11 million was intended to fund at least a dozen other relevant parks, recreation and green space projects in a dozen other neighborhoods city wide. Now those projects, benefiting 10’s of thousands of people won’t happen - because SAM’s Mayor, some Council and even “green” supporters allowed SAM to bully their way in.

Great way to build city wide support. Giving money from a levy originally advertised for parks citywide to a private, non profit, wealthy cultural organization, acting like a bully, for a non parks use building.

The PGSL made a big deal out of “equity” in distributing levy proceeds. How is 11 million for SAM demonstrating commitment to “equity”? The biggest losers in this levy are - you guessed it - low income communities.

Why has there not been, up to now, a public debate and discussion on why, how and what the best means are for funding the publicly owned SAAM building? Why are SAM and a few insiders not only determining the fate of our building, but how it will be funded? You remember getting any say on this?

There must be better, more appropriate ways to do this, and it should be done, the City should honor what ever legal, contractual commitments made to SAM (if they are indeed legal and contractual):
Why this way, why now?

Perhaps it’s time to revisit the issue of whether the Volunteer Park facility should be a museum at all; if there are better, more public uses for our public property; whether having a museum there represents the best economic, parks, recreation and/or cultural return for the public; or question as to how all this fits into both Volunteer Park’s and SAM’s long term plans.

Shouldn’t the new Museum Director, yet to be hired, weigh in on this? Why rush to judgement by committing 11 million now before we have a chance to publicly debate alternatives?

SAM has threatened to “walk away” from the Vol. Park building. Let them – allow them to take the massive PR hit, as clueless to that as to the equally big PR hit they are already taking for this – and it’s only going to get worse for them. Is this what the SAM Board really wants, or do they know the whole story? Perhaps someone should tell them how they’re being represented.

Too many questions unanswered in the rush to judgement. Too few reasonable solutions unconsidered. Doubts equal “no” votes in times of economic difficulty.

The SAM funding unnecessarily jeopardizes the needed continuation of the current parks levy - and for the worst of reasons. There is no defense of this funding that passes any smell test I’m aware of - and, frankly, would not want to experience.

I won’t even discuss for now – as I have before - the complex , political machinations that brought what was a simple, well meaning “parks and green spaces for all” levy, with little accompanying controversy - and a good chance of passing in a tough economy - to the edge of defeat.

And how the Green Legacy Coalition - who pushed levy as a means to circumvent the Mayor - were actually used by him to his advantage. They thought they were players - turns out they didn’t know they were played, and by some they thought were their allies!

Nor discuss in depth the levies second biggest funded project at nearly 5 million: Renovations for – you guessed it – still another non parks and recreation building: Langston Hughes. Seems the Committee had so little contact and outreach to the Central District communities that they put this n the list at the last moment for lack of community articulated alternatives: How patronizing to that underserved neighborhood, in dire need of real parks and recreation facilities.

The two biggest project line items in the levy at this moment fund renovations for two cultural buildings – simply because the City doesn’t know where else to get the SAM money nor is able to otherwise address the parks and green needs of the Central District.

This whole process, as the Editorial points out to a degree, shows a real failure of leadership across broad fronts.

The only think I disagree with the PI on is the quality of the process that created the levy: It’s becoming obvious that this was anything but an open, public process, and more like another insider, deal cutting debacle, in spite of the sincere efforts of a minority of Committee Members to prevent this from happening.

However, it’s not to late for some on Council to show some backbone, and kick this money out, and soon; restoring public trust and faith, thus proving, as some newer Council Members are claiming, that it’s no longer “business as usual” at City Hall.

We shall see: Say vs Do.

Never to late to exercise quality leadership.

Time to exercise yours: Email/Call Council and tell them to take the SAM and other non parks money out, thus assuring a fair, equitable true parks and green space levy that the voters will pass.

If Council can’t muster the relatively minor courage required to that, then tell them at least to keep it off the ballot until ‘09, giving more time to find answers to the questions - and more - previously mentioned.

Like to see Mayor Greg “Green” Nickels, up for re-election, be directly confronted with the option of publicly opposing a green parks levy with out SAM funding, instead of manipulating it behind the scenes as he is doing now.

Regards,

Geof