In Thinking that money grows on trees we saw that the city spent $750,000 on those things that have sprouted up on Airways.
They call it public art.
Without getting into a discussion about whether we should spend money on public art, or another discussion about how much we should spend (currently 2% of city capital spending), maybe we should talk about how we spend the money that we have allocated for public art.
Wouldn’t our community have been better off if the $750,000 had been broken apart into smaller projects commissioned with local artists?
Let’s say they had broken the money up into ten $75,000 projects.
We would have public art in more places and we would have supported ten locals.
We deserve better