It was a tough act to follow. At the last City Council
meeting, a wave of public outrage over the Council’s 4-3 decision to double
garbage rates crashed against the dais, leaving the four approvers scrambling
for safer ground. After two hours of getting lambasted for insensitivity to
ratepayer interests, the Council turned its attention to the next agenda item:
a proposal for a Public Arts Ordinance. The same four Council members understandably
weren’t ready to vote for anything that looked remotely like another fee
increase.
This garbage vote is interesting. Why would council members
who had been the least likely to support environmental causes now use the 10%
increase in recycling to justify their vote for a garbage contract that was
almost twice the cost of the contract recommended by the City Manager? I hope
that it was out of concern for our dear planet, and that it will outlive the
garbage contract debacle. The Council could, for example, support a strong Sustainability
component of the General Plan. It could live up to the City’s August 2002
resolution to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It could press the County and State
to help open our mountaintop cathedral, Lafferty Park.
At least it could ask Empire Waste to submit a bid to match
the higher recycling rates of Norcal and Green Waste,
or choose the far-less-expensive Green Waste 70% proposal. Or get Norcal to commit to a far lower revenue requirement. But I
have to agree with the lambasters: as much as I support
and practice recycling, I can’t see asking this community to spend an extra $50
million on it. That’s big money.
And when big money is on the table, democracy can suffer. This
referendum to overturn the vote…I hear some of the signature gatherers are
getting paid. Really? By Empire Waste, perchance? The last time we had paid
signature gatherers for a Petaluma issue –an initiative to abandon Lafferty --
it led to California’s largest-ever case of voter fraud. My advice: don’t ever
sign any petitions held by “mercenaries.”
So after two hours of trash talk, the Council Chamber was
still packed with citizens supporting the Art Ordinance. But their day had not
yet come. Council Member Karen Nau, in opposing the
ordinance, cited a recent Argus column by Don Bennett. Next time she can cite this
one. The Art Ordinance is not, as Bennett argued “government by initiative, the
same process that brought us Indian Casinos.” Art supporters brought this idea
to the City a year ago, and were instructed to work with staff. They have
modified their measure in response to community input and “best practices” from
the hundreds of other communities with similar laws. They attempted to engage the
business community in the project, and are now making good progress. The
Council directed them complete this effort, and come back on March 21. This community
process seems the *ideal* way to create good legislation.
Q: Will the “1% for art” fee drive developers away from
Petaluma? A: Unlikely, because developers value Petaluma for the same reasons
their customers and tenants (and the rest of us) are attracted here: it’s a
healthy community; and our history, art and culture are an important part of
that health. Q: Why not decide on a project-by-project basis instead of
requiring 1% for *all* major non-residential developments? A: Consistency yields
efficiency. Discretion will be applied to the *choice* of art, by a
Council-appointed volunteer Arts Advisory Committee, but there won’t be any
staff-time consuming arguments and appeals over whether or not an art expenditure
should be made.
Q: Why don’t we do this for parks and ball fields? A: Art
can be incorporated into every commercial development project, as part of the
project design. Parks cannot. Their location is determined the General Plan. Q:
What’s the rush? A: Commercial development is booming, especially downtown. We
need to have art in these new projects. Q: What can I do to help the Public Art
Ordinance? A: Contact your Council Members (see petalumaartscouncil.org for
details), and attend the March 21 Council meeting, 7PM.