Sam, the city and the arts
Jesse Beason
From The Oregonian:
Sam Adams recently sat down with Oregonian art critic D.K. Row.
A full transcript of their conversation is below. A shorter print version is in the Feb. 5 O! section.
By D.K. ROW
When Sam Adams and Nick Fish promised to boost funds for Portland's percent for art ordinance during the 2004 campaign, some thought their words were campaign bluster. They were in a fight for a city commissioner seat, after all. In the end, Adams, who served 11 years as former Mayor Vera Katz's chief of staff, won a tight race, presenting himself as a candidate whose City Hall connections would help revitalize the system.
A few weeks ago, Adams kept his public art promise, pushing a 2 percent for art ordinance through city council. The ordinance, increased from 1.33 percent, mandates that two percent of the budget for any public construction project should go to public art.
Previously, Adams' office also produced an audit of the public art process, examining whether participating city agencies were meeting their percent for art requirements.
But highlighting public art isn't all Adams has done as the city commissioner whose portfolio of duties includes supporting Portland's cultural landscape. Adams has also exhibited an enthusiasm for the arts not seen perhaps since the days of former commissioner Mike Lindberg. He's tried to rescue the Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center from financial and administrative ruin, facilitated art exhibits at City Hall, and generally schmoozed the arts and culture community much the same way he campaigned - relentlessly. Adams even hired the first full-time arts and culture staffer at City Hall in recent memory, Senior Policy Director Jesse Beason.
But for all of his energy, Adams' arts commitments can sometimes seem too diffuse. It's only been a year but the commissioner has yet to narrow his focus, create a coherent platform that connects his arts and social policies into one vision.
Recently, Adams took 45 minutes to talk about the arts, opining about everything from the recent increase in public art funds to his support of the controversial Armory project in the Pearl District to an assessment of arts support during the Katz years. The interview was edited for space and clarity.
Q: Artists will applaud the percent for art increase. But others might ask: There are so many financial stresses on the city - school funding issues, for example. How do you justify this increase?
A: Arts and culture is a basic service that needs to be supported by all levels of government. It's frustrating for arts advocates to have to make the basic case for it, but we do. The more students are exposed to arts education, the more critical and innovative thinkers they become. This topic has been the focus of a lot of research. Early arts education makes for better students. It's an efficient investment if you want to look at it in economic terms.
On the other end, the arts is what frames a city and challenges it at the same time. There are few things that inspire us and make us look at ourselves in a way that we otherwise wouldn't be able to get a perspective on. That's important to the continuing evolution of any city.
Q: You had a no new tax pledge during your campaign.
A: Yes, no new taxes until we get a local funding solution for schools.
Q: Couldn't the percent for art increase be considered a backdoor tax?
A: It certainly is a fee on public construction projects. But it's an existing tax that comes from already agreed upon budgets. It's not a new tax. I've been against the cell phone tax, for instance. That's a new tax. My pledge is no new taxes unless it goes to fund education, until we get a handle on local funding for education.
Q: A lot of the city's public art programs are managed and overseen by the Regional Arts & Culture Council. Has there been an evaluation of RACC by your office? Do you feel it's performing well or in need of an overhaul?
A: I think they are performing great and I think they need an overhaul. I say that because our arts master plan (Arts Plan 2000) is 14 years-old. The agreement we made with ourselves as a community was approved when emails and the Internet didn't exist. We need to come up with a new and inspired vision for what we want to be as an arts and culture community. RACC's job is to play a key role on the public side to implement that. They do a great job but I want to challenge them and take things to the next level.¤.¤.
Q: You want to raise $15 million in five years for the arts. How are you going to get that when things are so tight at City Hall?
A: Well, it's $15 million in new public and private support. One thing we have to decide is whether we are going to take a regional approach to this. There is a lot of wealth in Washington and Clackamas counties. In order to bring that area to light, we have to think that art doesn't just happen downtown. One idea we've been talking about is producing an all-weather symphony in the parks. We can set up a tent in downtown Milwaukee - anywhere - and you can have the symphony or the opera play year round. All of our arts (programs) need to reach out into neighborhoods beyond downtown. And we need to grow audiences. One of the problems with the lack of arts education is that we're not cultivating the next arts and culture generation. So we need to do some remedial stuff. That's why we worked with the Portland Art Museum to have free days. On Martin Luther King, Jr. day, it was free. The city of Portland paid for that. We know if people are interested in the arts but $10 is keeping them from going to the museum, then we need to have more opportunities for them to get a taste of what they are missing.
Q: Speaking of the museum, they have very high admission prices. If the city offers more public funds, should there be some requirement by them to lower their admission or something along those lines?
A: The balance we tried to strike with them is these free days. The first few weeks (of the museum's recent opening of its new wing) were free, and we've picked up (funding for) the national holidays. That's the balance. They have to cover their bills. I'd like to see them improve the wages they pay and benefits they give to employees. I know it's a challenge for them.
Q: The Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center is an organization you've long supported. It's also had devastating financial and administrative problems for a few years. What's the prognosis for bailing it out and is it worth saving given the lack of money at City Hall?
A: One, Portland remains the largest, whitest city in the United States. That's a fact. So my answer to your question is: Hell, yes, the IFCC should exist and heck yes, organizations that seek to connect with and inspire and support communities of color in this region need our support. The second part is: We really need to focus on the African American community because of the dearth of facilities and opportunities for their artistic expression; Portland's African American community doesn't have options.
As for the IFCC, we recruited a new board there that is entirely African American and then we recruited an interim executive director who's not. But she's done a fabulous job. This year, we are cash positive, we've shown the IFCC can be sustainable. We've shown with the audiences we're getting at new shows - from "Urinetown" to a (recent) hip hop event - that there is a need for the IFCC. What we are looking at long term is to develop the properties adjacent to the IFCC in a way that helps them become permanently sustainable.
Q: You supported the plan to turn the Armory building in the Pearl District into the new home for Portland Center Stage. What's the state of the project?
A: We went through a tour (of the space) in November. It's looking great. They're on track with their fundraising.
Q: The subsidy for the project is labyrinthine and provoked discussion. (The federal funding that helped leverage the Armory was earmarked to boost blighted urban areas. The Armory qualified because of its proximity to Old Town/Chinatown even though it's in the upscale Pearl District.) Do you support this subsidy? The perception it created was that if you were not a big developer working on a downtown project and not connected to City Hall. you weren't going to get attention and support.
A: That might be the reputation for City Hall, but it's one I'm working hard to dispel, at least for me. I've visited artists in garages that I didn't know but whose work I saw and was impressed by. I host First Thursdays for artists who don't have a gallery contract. Disjecta and the Portland Art Center (organizations Adams supports) are new organizations finding their way. So I would say I agree with that criticism. but that I'm also working hard to change that. It's a matter of supporting existing organizations while also making sure that new ideas get a chance to grow as well.
Q: So you support the subsidy because you support the organization.
A: Yes, for a couple of reasons in this case. The New Market Tax Credit, which was the device for funding the armory, is so complicated. Unfortunately, the organization and the city, to a degree, paid the price for the fact that there is this federal opportunity. You just have to live with that. I absolutely support turning the Armory into Portland Center Stage's new home. We need those kinds of arts and culture icons. Portland doesn't have a lot of icons to point to. I also think the way they are doing it will make it a hub of activity for the neighborhood.
Q: The ends justify the means in this case because you like the institution?
A: I do ... applications for New Market Tax Credits for the IFCC and the old dude ranch building (in North Portland) that was a jazz club are out. We don't know if they got them or not. It's a challenge. But developers for profit get new market tax credits, why shouldn't a portion of them go to arts and culture projects? They are complicated (to understand) and I think we need to improve the public process regarding who gets the tax credit.
Q: In what ways can the city push the state in terms of supporting the arts?
A: I'm not a fan of unnecessary process, but I'm a big proponent of public involvement. That means meaningful opportunity for people to give us their best ideas, to challenge what we say. Part of the reason for redoing the Arts Plan 2000 is to really grow the relationship between the private sector and other public sector folks in the region around a truly regional plan to support the arts. A lot of the region's wealth and economic base is now in the suburbs - Intel and Tektronix. I want to work harder to bring them into the fold of the arts community. If we're going to crack the Top 10 (in arts funding nationally), we need more than one private institution donating more than $500,000 a year. That's a reality. That's going to take cultivating some additional advocates in the business community. And we need to show them that they get a real return on their investment on all levels.
Q: You mentioned your First Thursday openings. Why are you presenting an event that competes with other galleries, people you're supposed to be supporting?
A: Our First Thursdays are from 5-7 p.m. That gives people plenty of time to get out to the other galleries as well ... We aren't competing with galleries because we only show artists without contracts/representation. I also need to do my job: I have had more people come into city hall after inviting them here. It's (First Thursday) also just an open house. We had probably 800 people last First Thursday.
Q: You were Vera Katz's chief of staff for 11 years. How would you grade her administration in terms of arts support? And as her chief of staff, what was your part in it?
A: When Vera took office, some of the major arts organizations at that time were struggling. She committed a million dollars to each of them - Oregon Ballet Theater, Oregon Symphony, Portland Art Museum. We also gave money, not a million dollars, to Portland Center Stage. She did that because all of these organizations had huge debt. She increased funding for the arts beyond that ... It's a legacy I want to build on and I have the platform to do it.
Q: But if you could offer a gentle criticism of her tenure?
A: Given the fact that she wasn't the arts commissioner, given that there were cutbacks all the time, the accomplishments are that much more important. What we are trying to do here (now) but didn't get to during the Katz administration is (create) a true community out of some excellent parts. How do you harness the entrepreneurial spirit out there? A lot of those 11 years were just hanging on for the magic bullet, the one source funding. That didn't come to pass.
Posted by Jesse Beason on February 7, 2006
(8) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Arts & Culture, Front Page, News, Regional Arts & Culture Council
Comments by site visitors
Steve,
The PCS move does require it to grow to the next stage of their development. There is some risk in that, but I beleive it is the right risk to take for them and the local arts and cultural community. By moving Portland Center Stage out of the PCPA, it allows the PCPA to rent the vacated space to traveling shows that bring in more money for them
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Feb 11, 2006 8:41:13 AM
Mr Adams - Taking risks with other people's money (taxpayers) is not a very responsible attitude. PCS has barely ever made a profit.
The real risk is the city of Portland pours $30M or so into a theater (which helps Mr Gerding market his condos), then PCS can't make the payments and taxpayers are on the hook for this - Just like Civic Stadium when you worked for Ms Katz.
You just stated citizens feel overwhelmed with taxes - however risky spending really doesn't help your credibility with voters and makes school funding that much more difficult to make happen.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 11, 2006 1:26:22 PM
Steve,
There is risk in everything. As a small business person you know that better than most. The risk I wrote about was for PCS to take their operations to the next level. In the case of the Armory redevolopment project itself, the City will own the building that it can sell if all else fails. The building is worth more than the City will have into it. That mitigates the risk to taxpayers.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Feb 11, 2006 1:49:36 PM
The Armory is only worth what an able buyer would be willing to pay for it.
When you build an expensive venue for live theater, the potential list of "similar use" buyers is quite small. When a City has a fire sale, that small list of buyers can become quite frugal with their acquisition dollars.
You really can't know that it's worth more than the City put into it until you try and sell it. Same with PGE Park. If it's operating at a loss each year, perhaps the capitalized cost is too high. The next buyer needs to pay less (perhaps even less than the cost of the remodeling) in order to achieve positive cash flow.
Posted by: Alice | Feb 11, 2006 9:34:09 PM
Mr Adams - I guess my point is that we always seem to be able to find money for:
- Armory Theater
- Tram
- Civic Stadium
- Tax breaks for Pearl condos
- $300M a year for PDC
However, when it comes to finding money for schools, all of a sudden we are dry. The tired bromide of we can only spend certain money on certain things is about as effective as saying I don't want my taxes to pay for a war in Iraq - All taxes come from the same place, the taxpayers. Wasteful spending is exactly that.
I only ask when you spend $30M on things like the Armory Theater for PCS, think of the effect it will have on raising money for schools.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 11, 2006 11:01:39 PM
One more thing about risk, why are we taking the risk for PCS on this project? If PCS flops and can't make payments, we get stuck with the mortgage.
It would be nice to see if someone with financial training in city government could show a risk mitigation plan or even a justification like normal business people do if we go ahead with this.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 13, 2006 7:10:25 AM
Suggest that we "kill two birds with one stone" and make the following proposal:
Suggest that the city automatically include a permit to allow for "scenic/landscape" mural art when they zone tall building side walls NOT to include windows due to potential future increases in neighboring building's height.
Normal mural content rules would apply with regards to advertising, but the owner could hire a mural artist and include the mural art as part of the Fit & Finsh portion of the project while the building is still "under construction".
This certainly might eliminate a lot of blank walls. In addition, the partial cost of the mural could be part of the "percent for art ordinance" requirement.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | Mar 20, 2006 4:00:11 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
"We also gave money, not a million dollars, to Portland Center Stage."
Mr Adams - I thought the Armory Theater was built to accomodate PCS even though they can barely afford to pay rent on the Westmark Theater? I am not understanding why we needed a new theater when they had a perfectly good theater and they are not making money.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 7, 2006 11:04:11 PM