July 22, 2004

The two percent art mandate

By Bob Boydston
President, AVCA
Special to the Times

We don’t know how it got started, but in 1959 San Jose passed a law, Title 22, mandating 2 percent of certain costs in any public project be spent for public art. The law also mandates 1 percent for private projects involving public money. The law’s name is Title 22, Chapter 22.08 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES.

It may be that now that there are some big cost projects like the new city hall and the airport modernization, with cost overruns, that this mandate has come to the public’s attention.

The AVCA board has yet to take a position on this matter, but I would like to express my opinion. I would like the City Council to rescind this mandate. Any mandate dictates that no matter what the circumstances are at the time, this is the only course allowed. I believe that each case should be judged on its own merits.

Al Day is an active Almaden citizen and has called our attention to the consequences of this art mandate. Day points out in an e-mail he copied to AVCA, that recent announcements indicate that the cost of the airport modernization will now be $2.9 billion, not the original estimate of $1.3 billion. Depending what portion applies to the 2 percent mandate, this would mean that something like $20 to $60 million may be mandated for art. Day also points out that contracts for acquisition of works of art or for other purposes authorized by this title, which are in an amount exceeding $100,000, shall be submitted for approval to the city council or redevelopment agency board, as appropriate. Is this procedure being followed?

An interesting question is raised: do cost overruns mean that the artists will need to paid more for the existing art projects or will there have to be more art to meet the mandate?

What is art anyway? I think it is something in the eye of the beholder. For me the real art at the airports are the planes themselves. A frontal view of one of the airplanes is as good as any sculpture I will see.

I can understand the art community wanting to preserve this mandate. More than most things, it is difficult to put a dollar value on art. You can not say it improves a process like, for example, a new computer system might. If it is difficult to put a dollar value on art then it is difficult to justify the spending of dollars for art. Having a mandate means the cost of art does not have to be justified.

If there was no mandate, probably in the present tight money situation where there is little money for highways and schools, art would be difficult to justify, but if the public demanded it, it still could be done, but on its own merits.

Other issues…
On other matters, it is being proposed that the General Plan be changed to eliminate the bridge over the Los Alamitos Creek that would link Winfield with McAbee. This link was seen to relieve traffic congestion at Coleman and the Almaden Expressway, which is now at Level of service “E,” which is below minimum acceptable. However, such a Winfield Almaden connection would prevent residents in the Almaden Hills homes from going directly to the Almaden Expressway because of a center divider. They would have to turn to the right away from Almaden. When the EIR is issued, AVCA will examine this development.

An AVCA letter will be sent to the City Council members urging them to vote against a name change for the Almaden Branch Library.

If you would like to receive announcements regarding matters concerning the Almaden Community, send your e-mail address to AlmadenAVCA@aol.com and your e-mail address will be added to the hundreds that now receive information about our community.

For more information about the AVCA visit www.avca-sj.org.