County Art Assist program to end…
Back in June of 2007, the media release came out about the Art Assist program, it was one small part of a larger goal that this Toledo City Paper article covered, which was to try to enhance a Live. Work. Create. concept locally.
While I realized this loan program would not be one that my family could ever benefit from; my art budget consists of poster size replications of classic paintings like The Storm, I thought it had promise and it was a campaign idea that Ben Konop had that he saw come into reality. As reported in today’s Blade, the program is coming to an end. Which begs the question of is it better to try something that could create an impact, not continue it when you discover you did not get the results you want or do what happens all too often in our community. Keep trying and pump more funding into it…
Maggie thought it was a bad idea to begin with, she suggests that if this program would have never been funded that perhaps the number of layoffs might not needed to happen.
I don’t think that $7,881 was a wasted effort, to be fair it was over a year after the program was announced that the county started talking about cutting costs. There are times when I agree that our government county or otherwise spends money on programs/ideas where the money would be better spent elsewhere. In this case though, the initial goal of trying to encourage a higher support of local artists was one that had merit.
It was impossible to avoid thinking about the quote made by the Mayor in February of 2006, that he would like to see Toledo shed its image as a “shot-and-a-beer, factory, bowling alley town.” We joked around about that, some took it as an insult, but the reality is it’s clear that Toledo and apparently Lucas County even when there is a program like Art Assist out there, doesn’t support local artists and the arts community. That’s a bit sadder than discovering that the program didn’t work.
Why do I write that? Because most of the art galleries did have information on this program, so if more people actually visited some of the local galleries, if they truly desired to purchase something, here was the perfect opportunity to do so at a much lower interest rate. Even this person who has champagne dreams on a beer budget, sees the value of a healthy local arts community, economically and otherwise…
Art….we hardly knew yee……
December 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pmOf course Maggie thinks its a bad idea, what do you expect. At least she’s consistent! If it’s not her idea she will dog it, just like any other politician. Once a politician always a politician.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pmI understand the thought process, we have as a nation and locally both county and city spent money on things that were not a priority. In this instance though, the dollar amount is low, the idea was presented before our government county and otherwise acknowledged the economic problems, and it could have actually helped. Even if it didn’t do much beyond the full $25,000 being taken advantage of it could have been a nice pr moment for the area had it been so popular that people were turned away.
Art would have been just a bit more long lasting than flowers…
December 1st, 2008 at 6:01 pmIt was a bad idea because it took taxpayer money which is meant to be invested to get the best return and invested in a program that gave us 1%. Now Lisa I know you are smarter than to fall for the “good intention” crap put out by our politicians. It’s ironic that one of the three participants was a member of the Arts Commission and admitted that the $500 she borrowed was the most she ever spent on local artists. This isn’t the Middle Ages anymore when the money sent to the king was used by him to support music and the arts. The king is dead. Tax dollars should be used for services chartered by the government and nothing else. And although a little over $7,000 may not seem like much I’ll bet one of those people being laid off wouldn’t mind having it around right now.
December 1st, 2008 at 8:37 pmIt is ironic that one of those who used it was employed by the Arts Commission, it’s also a bit unrealistic to believe that had this program not been done that the $7,000 would have been used to save jobs. We don’t know what would have been done with the $250,000 that was invested in the cd had it not been done. I don’t think anyone asked that question then or now.
If the real concern was going to be the job savings issue then one only needs to look at the arena and what it was supposed to cost versus what it is going to cost. Or ask where the $250,000 plus the 1% interest is going now that this program has ended.
We supposedly want our electeds to come up with new ideas, they aren’t always going to work.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pmEveryone should be happy that this art program will be ending since it’s not working whereas there are other public programs out there that’s just keep being funded and yet no real results. So we should ask ourselves and to those elected officials: “When will the other public program ever end?”
I agree with Lisa in the last statement, we the voters do expect the elected officials to come up with new ideas, just to see if it works or not. None of us really have a crystal ball to know if anything is a good or bad idea until you try it.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pmThis isn’t the end of the arts in northwest Ohio – just the end of a rather unnecessary program. It was in place before our economic woes and still went primarily unused. It surely was not “economic development.”
There are many sales of art by local artists, last weekend the TMA sale was bustling with potential buyers. This weekend Toledo Botanical Gardens hosts Heralding the Holidays and is usually crowded with people buying art and crafts for themselves and as gifts.
Many local artists host sales at their homes, and there are lots of art shows and galleries in the area. You can afford to purchase locally made arts or crafts without breaking the budget – or going into debt.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:48 pmLisaRenee,
I would like to agree with both you and Fred on this one. This program was a waste of taxpayer money right from the beginning, and a waste of elected official time to boot. Government has a difficult enough time understanding and dealing with the things within its purview. Asking them to understand what art is, how it is financed, and what will encourage people to support it is simply beyond its comprehension.
And I too expect elected officials to come up with new ideas. I am appalled however, when it appears that none of those ideas involve living within their means or being good watchdogs of the people’s money. When did the concept of doing more with less, something we are all being forced to do these days, become something that elected officials became incapable of?
December 1st, 2008 at 9:59 pmMary Kate, I’ve been to some of the local art galleries, I’ve also been to craft shows, the art that was in question here was art that was priced over $500.00, since that was the minimum amount of the loan.
Of the bustling prospective buyers at TMA, I’d be interested in knowing what the average price of the art was. From what has been said by artists who sell pieces that cost over $500.00, there is not a market in this area and some have gone to other cities to sell their work. As Maggie referenced, when the program first when live in July there was a common conception here as well as other towns that local art was not getting the same asking price here as it would in Chicago. So, if you were interested in actually keeping these artists here or at least seeing if a program like this would generate more interest, the attempt at the loan program made sense.
Tim, I understand Fred’s position, just as I understand Maggie’s position, but I also realize that our government county or otherwise has a long history of going beyond just the priorities. There are times when if we are going to follow the past practices of spending money on non-priorities that an idea like this that costs a small amount of money is worth trying.
Now of course we are faced with a different picture, which means the focus is going to have to change. From listening to the Governor today and reading between the lines, quite a bit is going to change. It’s going to have to.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pmAs an example, if we are truly worried about the amount of profit being earned by the County, I never understood why in the investment portfolio it had this listed:
State of Israel – amount: 1,000,000.00 interest earned: 0.41
If you look at the 2008 budget, it’s the only investment that earns that small of a return. It’s on page 104 of the pdf. It’s one of those things that I always meant to ask. So, before I forget again…I’m bringing it up. It was not something that was listed in the 2007 budget. You’d think earning that small of an amount of a return would be a larger issue than an Art Assist program. I admit I’ve always been puzzled as to why Lucas County would be investing in the State of Israel.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pmLisa – clarification: I did not say that the money lost from interest would be enough to save a job – but rather ‘maybe part of one.’ There’s a big difference.
Rockets Man – I objected to the program because it would not result in the stated goal of ‘economic development’ – not because it wasn’t my idea. I’ve supported many good ideas that other elected officials have had. I even support Ben Konop’s opposition to the new conveyance tax increase.
Bottom line: the Art Assist program cost the county $7,880 in lost interest income and it did NOT stimulate the economy.
A simply evaluation of the specifics of the program showed what would happen – and, as I predicted, what wouldn’t.
It’s economics 101 – not politics.
If elected officials were really interested in providing an environment that leads to the creation of jobs, they wouldn’t have approved all those tax levy increases for the ballot…
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pmMaggie, that’s why I linked your post, you did suggest that this money could have had an impact on the layoffs. It didn’t work, you and I disagree on if it was worth attempting it.
The economic impact would have been minimal but if it would have created a scenario where people bought art they might not have, it would have had a small economic impact for the artists and the galleries. It also could have been a good word of mouth marketing tool. “Where did you get that painting?” “I got it at so and so, you know Key Bank has a loan program where you can borrow at 1% for art?” “No…really?”
It’s interesting that so far I’ve learn nothing new about the State of Israel scenario.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 pmLisa – I don’t remember an investment in any foreign countries when I was a commissioner. I think you’re right in questioning the ROI for that particular item.
The County’s investment board is comprised of the Treasurer, the 3 Commissioners and the Clerk of Court. When I was there, we used a firm to handle the actual investments and got a quarterly report of earnings, purchases, sales, etc.
If you call and ask anyone about it, please let us all know…inquiring minds…
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pmThanks, I was hoping it was something I missed, but it doesn’t appear it is. I did email asking about it, if I don’t get an answer I’ll call and I promise to update. It just seemed odd, especially with the interest being so low.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pmLisaRenee wrote:
The 0.41% isn’t the return on investment, it’s the investment’s size relative to Lucas County’s investment portfolio. My guess is that the $1 million is invested in government bonds issued by Israel.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 pmThanks for the correction on the percentage – I found that type of bond when I was searching, but was not able to find anything directly related to that being the investment or why Lucas County decided to invest a million dollars in the State of Israel. Now, I have to wonder what the ROI is since I should have read the top part of my screen…
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 pmWhile the majority of the art work sold at TMA was primarily under $100, much of it was done by students in the program. Some instructors also offered work at the sale. There are artists selling in Toledo for more than $500, but they are generally established artists that have developed a following. I would hazard a guess that there are artists in Chicago that can’t sell their work there. The broader the marketing base the better chance of sales. With the internet, we are a global market and its still more affordable to live in Toledo and sell wherever you can.
My point was just that artists do make money in Toledo as do galleries, who generally and deservedly make 35%-50% of the selling price of the work. Purchasing art is always subjective and based on the eye of the beholder, educating purchasers, and marketing, marketing, marketing.
If there is a need or desire for this type of program it could be developed using private philanthropy. Perhaps someone committed to improving the art market in the area could take up the idea and fund it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pmThat would be a good thing to see happen Mary Kate, thanks for responding.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pmLisa:
I looked up the “State of Israel” bond link. I have no idea whether it’s a sound investment, but 0.41% refers to the percentage of the overall portfolio, not the interest rate. Otherwise, the first line shows a CD earning over 18% interest and FNMA is paying 23%.
Assuming that we should be spending tax dollars to promote the arts, this seemed like a really ineffective way to do it. It works better as a way for an elected official to generate press, which seems to have been the true purpose. How often would you expect someone to say, “Gee, I’d really like to buy this painting, but I can’t afford it unless I can get a 1% loan?” How much staff time was spent on this?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:53 pmCB, the percentage of .41 was an error on my part, upgrayedd pointed that out, had I take just a few moments to read the text above the numbers, there would have been no confusion, which still leaves the question as to why is the County investing in the State of Israel.
It’s clear not many purchases were expected given the amount of funding that was set aside for this. If all of the paintings were in the $500.00 range which was the minimum loan amount we are talking about 50 loans, 25 loans at $1,000. It was designed to be just one part of a larger incentive to help promote local artists, it’s clear it did not work out as was hoped.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pm