Government policies are a double-edged sword. On the one side, they are an important way to ensure consistent and smooth operations, at least when managed effectively. On the other, they can become an automatic adherence to a set of practices regardless of the overlying conditions. It is when this happens that policies stop being good government and begin cutting into common sense.
Take the city’s public art and corporate branding policies as prime examples. On the surface both have merit. They help to enhance the community and depoliticize the spending. While the value of public art, especially when funded by tax dollars, is not without contention, there is ample evidence to support that art and culture help build communities.
Here in St. Albert there are two policies – the community branding and public art policies – that allow for the funding of public art projects. Both allow for a small percentage of capital projects – up to one per cent – be put toward either art or projects that promote the Botanical Arts City brand.
Controversy erupted in the city last week when the latest branding project hit the streets – literally. A new crosswalk scheme in front of city hall that took up a portion of $53,000 worth of branding funding pooled from eight eligible projects, raised eyebrows. Not only was it deemed unsafe by an expert, it is also a temporary measure to gauge public interest. From the response, we would suggest public support is low. More controversy ensued when the city also unveiled the giant bronze Cone by British artist Tony Stallard in Rotary Park.
But the greater question is, are the public art and branding policies working. What constitutes art will always be in the eye of the beholder but supporting local artists is a positive for any community. The issues are how much spending, how many projects and what types of projects are appropriate? Next on tap is the repainting of the pedestrian bridge over St. Albert Trail to mimic brickwork at a cost of $118,000. Projects such as this exacerbate the controversy because they appear frivolous and spending money for the sake of spending money.
Neither policy has a provision to limit the spending. Both state that money will or shall be allocated to art or branding projects. This is where both policies fail. While it might not make sense to have every project go to council for approval, it also does not make sense to attach spending for art or branding to every eligible project.
People in this province are concerned about the economy. Our city’s taxes are high. Those factors make for poor optics when the city is spending tens of thousands on temporary crosswalks and pretty bridges. When it comes to deciding what is appropriate, only the arts committee has a public representative overseeing selection, and sometimes quality is better than quantity.
Other communities in Alberta such as Rocky View County, Ponoka, Vulcan and the list goes on have branding strategies with aims to either enhance or promote the community. The question is are the projects that are being selected best serving the brand strategy or is it just window dressing. We think the latter.
Perhaps it is time to revisit the policies to cap the annual spending. It might also be time to revisit the branding strategy and determine if it is working.
