The Awards recognize the accomplishments of artists, arts and cultural organizations as well as community members committed to enriching their communities through the arts.

This year, the Arts Awards encompasses five categories: Future Focus, for arts education and working with youth; Artistic City, for creativity; Venture Culturalist, for funders, businesses, donors or professional development/service organizations; Arts as the How, for social issues; and Raising the Bar, for artistic excellence.

2010 Mayor’s Arts Awards kick-off Bumbershoot Arts & Music Festival at Seattle Center

Do you know an artist deserving of recognition? How about an arts organization that you feel is doing excellent work? Or, perhaps you work for a company that makes a difference by giving big to the arts? I encourage you to submit your nominations for the 2013 Mayor’s Arts Awards via the Office of Arts website, here. The deadline for nominations to be received is 5 p.m., Wednesday, May 15.

The Seattle Arts Commission will review public nominations and recommend recipients to the Mayor for final selection.

This year, I am nominating The Gage Academy under the Future Focus category. Since 1989 the Academy, lead by co-founders Gary Faigin and Pamela Belyea, has provided community-based artistic development for artists of all ages and abilities through year-round instructional programs, public art events, lectures, youth programming, and exhibitions.

Nick Licata chats with Norm Langill of One Reel during the 2003 Mayor’s Arts Awards

Past Award recipients include public artist Buster Simpson, Three Dollar Bill Cinema (2012), Pratt Fine Arts Center (2011), Reel Grrls (2010), Artist Trust (2009), Coyote Central and Marybeth Saterlee (2008), Longhouse Media’s Native Lens Program (2007), maestro Gerard Schwarz (2006), painter Alden Mason, The Tsutakawa Family (2005), and the Seattle Foundation (2004).

2013 Award recipients will be honored at a free public ceremony that kicks off the Bumbershoot arts festival at Seattle Center on Friday, August 30, starting at 4pm. Look for details closer to the date on the Office of Arts website.

While the Awards don’t provide any money, winners do receive a snazzy plaque or trophy. More importantly, winners receive recognition among their peers and throughout the greater Seattle area that may help them expand their successes.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter.
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

In honor of the Space Needle’s 50th Anniversary, Berger will refer to his most recent book, “Space Needle: Spirit of Seattle,” in describing how a crude napkin sketch evolved into Seattle’s most iconic structure. Berger is a columnist for Crosscut.com, writing under the name “Mossback;” is Editor-at-Large and a columnist for Seattle Magazine; author of Pugetopolis; and former longtime editor of the Seattle Weekly.

Space Needle, 1962

The Space Needle is actually not owned by the City. It’s a private corporation that owns the land upon which it sits. It serves as a tremendous asset to our city and to the entire world as one of its most iconic modern structures.

It was the 1962 World’s Fair, drawing some 10 million visitors, that introduced the world to the futuristic Monorail and Space Needle. As exciting, shiny and new the Center was then, 20 years later it was deemed in serious need of attention. In 1988, Disneyland’s “Imagineers” pitched a plan to breathe new life into the Center. In order to solve the Center’s persistent budget problems, the plan would have required commercializing most of the Center’s grounds. It was rejected. An alternative plan inspired taxpayers to support a $25.8 million upgrade in 1991 and another $36 million worth of improvements in 1999.

Today, Seattle Center hosts a number of festivals, such as Bumbershoot and Festal, as well as non-profit tenants, such as Pacific Northwest Ballet and the Seattle Repertory Theatre. It also hosts the popular Seattle Storm WNBA basketball team at the former Key Arena. If a new men’s NBA basketball team comes to play in a yet-to-be-built arena in Seattle, Key Arena’s future may not be so bright.

The Center now has yet another plan in hand to revitalize itself: the Century 21 Master Plan. Though, it’s a plan that for now sits on the backburner.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

The City Council voted 6-2 yesterday (Conlin and Licata voting no; Rasmussen absent) in favor of a revised Memorandum of Understanding for a basketball and hockey arena in SODO.  Below are the remarks I made explaining my vote.

THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBERS

I’d like to begin by thanking the leadership of Councilmember Burgess in markedly improving the proposal that was originally presented to us, and thank Council President Clark and Councilmember O’Brien for their involvement in negotiations.

SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS

The Council received a number of significant concessions from investor Chris Hansen, three of the most important being:

1. A full SEPA review will be completed before any Transaction Documents are signed. That means the City will take into consideration alternative sites, traffic congestion, and freight mobility.

2. A Personal Financial Guarantee in case of the corporation not meeting its financial obligations on time.

3. Financially contributing to the creation of a SODO Transportation Infrastructure Fund, should tax revenues not generate adequate funds.

In addition, it is important to note that separate from the city’s negotiations, the labor unions that will be serving at the arena are very pleased with the 30 year agreement they have reached with Hansen.

HOW DOES IT MEASURE UP TO OTHER DEALS?

So how does this proposal measure up to other deals?

Academic studies reveal that of the 17 new or updated arenas built since 1999, 7 have received a 100% public subsidy, while five received 30% or less.  With two professional sport teams secured, we are seeing a proposal at about 41% public funding, which is better than most, although not the top one. If it’s just a basketball franchise the public percentage drops to 24%, but the risk of financial failure also increases.

PUBLIC VOTE

I talked to one of other co-founders of Citizens for More Important Things, who believes this is a decent proposal. Another one believes if it is so good; put it to a public vote. That suggestion was raised by King County Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer, and was rejected by the King County Council, and arena supporters, although the generally pro-business Seattle Times did support a public vote.

However, a public vote would not be a certain victory for either side. Usually the pro side significantly outspends the naysayers, so a vote would not assure public funding.  Some proposals have passed based on a 100% of public funding, such as in Oklahoma City.

SUBSIDIZING OTHER CULTURAL FACILITIES

Supporters of this proposal say the city has subsidized the construction of other cultural venues, why not this one? They have a point.

The top three cultural facilities, the Seattle Art Museum (SAM), Benaroya Hall and McCaw Hall, have a total annual attendance that is about 90% of what the new Arena’s attendance is projected to be with both basketball and hockey. However, if the new arena has only basketball these 3 institutions’ attendance would be 170% greater than the new arena’s. The total City financial assistance for these three came to $84 million, with SAM receiving no cash support. And some of this assistance is being repaid.

The new arena, on the other hand, will be getting anywhere from 40% to a 140% more city financial assistance, depending on whether one or two professional teams locate there. The arena’s tax revenue is expected to pay it off. And if not, then the investors promise to make up the difference. The complexity of this MOU, and the transaction agreements to follow, limit the city’s financial risk if the unthinkable happens—and the Titanic sinks.

PRIVATE INVESTMENT MODEL

However, I believe the most significant difference between these other cultural facilities and any professional sports facility, is that the financial model for professional sport franchises make cities compete with each other for hosting one, hiking up the value of professional teams as cities have rushed to pick up large portions of their capital and operating costs. Unfortunately, teams have become commodities to be bought and sold, with their fans treated as shabbily as panhandlers.  It’s a system that is unthinkable for symphonies, operas, ballets or any other major cultural provider in an urban setting. Do they threaten to leave for a new city that offers them better accommodations? They are local institutions that have real roots in the community.

The real difference between these other cultural institutions and the new arena is their corporate status – non-profit vs. for-profit. The administration and operation of those other institutions is open to public scrutiny, with the city having representation on their boards. The new arena will be controlled by a private corporation whose existence aside from providing sports entertainment is predicated on making a profit for their owners, and as we have seen  selling the team when their profits sink.

The problem is that privately owned or controlled professional sport facilities need huge public subsidies without providing clearly measurable economic benefits. This of course ignores the enjoyment that many local citizens derive from having a home team.

WHAT SOME CITIZENS SEE

What some citizens see is that those who have a lot of money are using public resources to make even more money. They see someone purchase private land and in a couple of years get the city to buy it from him for double the price he purchased it for.  It strikes them as wrong.

When they see the city abandoning a major public facility, e.g. the Key Arena, without a plan on how to recoup its financial contribution to the Seattle Center, they see that as a mistake. Keep in mind that the Key Arena, despite the existence of the Qwest Exhibition Hall that some said would put it out of business, made $300,000 last year and provides an additional $1 million in parking revenue generated by the 110 events it hosts every year. It is difficult to see the current proposal as anything other than a blow to the welfare of the Seattle Center and a death knell to the Key Arena, which we have plowed $100 million in tax dollars into. I predict there will be a public vote for a revitalized Seattle Center.

They see siting the new arena adjacent to our largest industrial zone and our maritime industry, as risking our city’s overall economic growth. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in keeping Seattle one of the leading ports on the West Coast. Some have argued that the land in SODO might be better used for higher profit enterprises, like the arena. Nevertheless, I believe that is a short-term strategy, based on a year-end book evaluation by investors, not by city planners who must look out at least a decade or two down the road. A perceived quick economic boost is not the same as long-term strategy for sustaining living wage jobs in manufacturing and the maritime industry.

WHAT THIS VOTE IS ABOUT

This vote is not about liking or not liking sports; it should be about what is best for the public welfare in the long term. Many good people care about the future of this city and believe that this city is big enough to host another professional sports team.

They hear from those who truly miss the Sonics and the joy that they brought to their lives. Seattle should be a place that people can enjoy in many different ways. I hear them as well, and I am satisfied that the majority of the Council has heard them.

But I also hear those citizens who want the City to concentrate its resources on protecting what we currently have in place, the Key Arena and the Seattle Center, the maritime and manufacturing industries. They want public funds used for closing the gap that has grown between the 1% and the rest of us, not for subsidizing private companies even if they provide a great cultural experience. Instead, the marketplace should determine, by the number and wealth of their supporters, a company’s financial success.

In summary, I believe this proposal is a good one; it meets a high bar for public accountability. It is a rather solid tree in a forest of not such sturdy timber. However, I concur with those who focus on the unhealthy state of the forest and not on any particular tree. Their voice says enough of this; please address our other needs first and foremost. I hear them, and I will be casting a no vote.

Aside from my philosophical belief that government should generally avoid the use of public resources to augment private investments, my practical concerns with this proposal, as with other similar proposals in the past, has been to minimize the risk of a financial loss to Seattle’s budget, which could affect our ability to provide other services to our citizens.

THIS CAN HAPPEN IN 3 WAYS

First, if the public debt incurred to finance this project is not covered by the Arena’s revenue stream; this could be triggered either by bankruptcy or the team moving.

Second, if the general business climate is negatively impacted, and thus less revenue to the city as a whole. This would be most evident if the Port, manufacturing and freight mobility are constrained in doing business and providing jobs.

Third, if the city is burdened with additional costs for maintaining the Seattle Center due to the elimination of operation of Key Arena as a profitable venue.

Let me go further in describing how each has been addressed in the MOU.

THE FIRST WAY – REVENUE FALTERS

With regards to the possibility of bankruptcy, the personal financial guarantee of Chris Hansen is groundbreaking and perhaps unique. In checking with Neil DeMause of the Field of Schemes website, and economist Roger Noll of Stanford University, both of whom are experts in stadium funding, neither have heard of any owner providing such a guarantee.

We need to make sure that financial guarantees cover both the basketball and hockey teams. In the last 40 years no NBA team has gone bankrupt; however, over half of all professional sport team bankruptcies have involved hockey teams. I want to make sure we are covered for that possibility as well and it appears that the final version of the MOU took that possibility into account by rolling it into the obligation of the Parent Company that will have responsibility over the entire operation.

We have to prepare for all events. We cannot count on the past as fixed guide to the future. There is always a first time; for instance, our own Seattle Pilots in 1970 were the first major league team to file for bankruptcy.

With regards to the team moving, I believe we have strong guarantees in place with a requirement for a 30-year non-relocation agreement, which past lease agreements with the Sonics did not include. The duration of the agreement coincides with the length of bond payments; a 5-year discrepancy between the duration of bond payments and the lease for the Sonics at Key Arena was problematic. The Mariners have a similar requirement, though it is not strictly non-relocation; they are required to play games at Safeco Field. The arena MOU includes this requirement as well.

THE SECOND WAY – OTHER BUSINESSES ARE HURT

This issue comes down to location. In essence, will our manufacturing, maritime and warehouse businesses be restrained from growing and providing jobs for our citizens and income to our public treasury? The creation of the SODO Transportation Fund is an innovative and hopefully an effective tool in addressing this concern. It will allow—and to be most effective will need—other governments to contribute, including  state and regional funds, King County, and hopefully the Port of Seattle—although the Port notes it doesn’t have uncommitted transportation funds, given its planned $300 million contribution for the viaduct replacement.

The $40 million Transportation Fund must be used as an effective tool in sustaining SODO as a manufacturing and maritime zone, if Seattle is to remain a profitable and vibrant port for world trade. Currently the Port of Seattle is in negotiations with the Korean shipping company Hanjin, which accounts for 1/3 of the Port’s maritime operations. From my reading of the MOU, even with the Transportation Fund, there is still a need for strong assurances that the new arena will not hinder the Port’s ability to do business, and that our truck routes through SODO will not become more congested. I will be talking to those representing working and operating manufacturing businesses in SODO to seek out what options could be pursued.

And we should note that we must also consider the impact to the Mariners operations. The public has invested over $300 million in their facility; we do not want our investment endangered.

THE THIRD WAY – KEY ARENA BECOMES A BURDEN TO THE CITY

I struggle with how we can justify making public investments in one private facility while appearing to be prepared to abandon another public one. No one has come up with a proposal that will save the Key Arena as a facility for either sports or entertainment. And while including it in the SEPA process is admirable, is there anyone that believes it will be chosen as the best location for a new arena? And if it was, who would renovate or build a new one there? Chris Hansen, who is the only player in town, will not do so. Even the MOU recognizes this when it opens the door for the City and County to pursue Hansen’s project if there are no other bidders for building an arena elsewhere.

This is the city’s most immediate problem. By steering five million of the seven million in the Key Arena fund away from the Key Arena to the new arena, to accommodate the women’s professional basketball team, the Storm, we have essentially sentenced Key Arena to be demolished. The city, using public funding, must decide what will replace it. Something must be in that location that can provide more pedestrian activity in the Seattle Center than what has been provided in the past by the Key Arena, and something that can support itself financially and hopefully contribute to the Seattle Center’s financial bottom line.

Of the three ways that Seattle has a negative financial exposure, this one appears to be the one least addressed in the MOU. It is difficult to see how the Seattle Center will gain from this new basketball arena; it is much easier to see how it will suffer. And, that could negatively impact our general budget. Seattle Center’s welfare must be taken into account in a manner that goes beyond this MOU.

SUMMARY

Aside from my concern with how the new arena may negatively impact our general fund, I believe that the public deserved more time to assess its strengths and weaknesses. And I too wished to dig deeper into this document that was only completed 48 hours before the Committee vote. For that reason, I abstained on the vote and had asked our Council President Sally Clark to delay the final council vote until Monday Sept. 24^th, which she did with the concurrence of the Committee Chair Tim Burgess.

(image courtesy HistoryLink.org)

This Saturday, September 8th, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., will be the centerpiece of their celebrations: The Next 50 Birthday Bash. It will be a family-friendly community-wide daytime party, featuring live local entertainment, art, fresh local foods by the region’s top mobile food vendors, and lots of children and family activities.

Throughout the Center grounds, there’ll be four music stages, four hours of arts performances on stage, free Monorail admission for kids under 12, a vintage clothing booth, an outdoor ballroom, a grand birthday cake ceremony, Puget Sound Business Journal VIP photo ops, a skate boarding clinic & demos, SIFF’s red carpet screening of “It Happened at the World’s Fair,” free Experience Music Project admission for ages 16 and under, and a wall built out of Jello bricks. Visit Seattle Center’s website for details.

I find it interesting that a Seattle City Councilmember sparked the ’62 World’s Fair. HistoryLink.org reports that Councilmember Al Rochester (1895-1989) was so impressed by the 1909 Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition he witnessed as a teenager that after joining the City Council he began promoting the idea of a second World’s Fair. The Council asked the state legislature to support a second world’s fair for Seattle. Olympia responded by providing $5,000 to form a World’s Fair Commission. The rest, as they say, is history.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

Photo: Robert Wade Photography

Those larger organizations comprise less than 2% of all arts and cultural nonprofits, receive more than half of the sector’s total revenue, focus primarily on Western European art forms and their programs serve audiences that are predominantly white and upper income.

Meanwhile, artists and cultural groups are increasingly employing the arts in diverse ways to engage and build communities, address persistent economic, educational and environmental societal problems as well as inequities in human and civil rights.

Addressing this and other social justice issues related to arts and culture is the Arts & Social Change Symposium: An Open Dialogue scheduled for October 12th & 13th at Seattle Center.

Geared toward arts administrators, artists, social service professionals, government representatives, and social justice leaders from around the Pacific Northwest, the gathering will address the role diverse arts play in creating awareness, inspiring understanding and developing policies that address cultural equity and social change.

The Seattle Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs, The Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Seattle Center, 4Culture, The Washington State Arts Commission and The Association of American Cultures have come together in hopes of engaging arts and social change communities from throughout the Pacific Northwest to learn how to become transformative change agents using the arts.

Symposium Goals

• Inspiration – to inspire action and activism; to motivate for change;
• Participation – have dialogue; make recommendations for systemic and social change;
• Learning – to gain new awareness; to listen, participate, communicate, share, and engage;
• Community Building – to meet, connect, and build relationships with other networks beyond the symposium.

Session Objectives

• Offer insight in how to engage and work with diverse communities, promote “cultural listening;”
• Provide an opportunity for local arts agencies from urban and suburban cities to share tools for working with new populations in cultural programming;
• Provide a forum for arts organizations to meet with social justice leaders and for community groups to meet with arts leaders;
• Develop policies for change as part of the national advocacy agenda for The Association of American Cultures.

The Symposium currently has an open call to artists for 2-D visual artwork to be exhibited during the symposium. The deadline for applying is this Friday, August 24, 2012, by 5 p.m. Art addressing social change is especially encouraged. Click here for information on how to apply.

The Arts & Social Change Symposium

Click here to register for the symposium. It costs $75 until 8/31; $100 before 10/5; and $125 at the door, if space allows.

Friday, October 12

9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Evening Program 6:30 p.m. – 9 p.m.

Saturday, October 13 

9 a.m. – 4 p.m.

At Seattle Center, Seattle, Washington, in the Northwest Rooms and the Playhouse/Intiman Theatre.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

Additional information about the Council committee schedule is listed in a press release from Councilmember Burgess, chair of the Government Performance and Finance Committee. Included in future Council meetings on the arena proposal is a June 20 meeting to discuss the future of Key Arena, followed by a discussion with Chris Hansen. The June 29 meeting will include a presentation by Mayoral staff on Initiative 91, passed by Seattle voters in 2006.

Pacific Sun, by Dale Chihuly (Photographed by Nick Licata)

As I strolled through Chihuly Garden and Glass during one of its opening celebrations recently, I was struck by the scale of Dale’s work – gigantic chandeliers, tall towers, expansive tableaus of floral and sea forms and a 100-foot long suspended sculpture composed of 1,300 individual pieces of glass, all occupying an acre and a half of land on Seattle Center grounds. It is quite impressive.

Chihuly Garden and Glass is a $20 million permanent exhibition financed by the Space Needle Corporation under the auspices of Center Art, LLC, which is leasing the property from the City. Center Art expects to receive entry fees of between $15 and $19 from about 400,000 visitors each year. Free days will be offered to local schools and discounted tickets distributed through the Seattle Center Foundation, campus resident organizations and other non-profits to pass on to their patrons.

Photo credit: Nick Licata

Center Art will pay the City an annual rent of $350,000 during their initial 5-year lease, increasing to $500,000 annually starting with any subsequent lease. Also upon renewing their lease, they’ll begin paying the City 8% of net proceeds from any Chihuly fine art sold on site.

In 2010, I wrote about what was then referred to as the Chihuly Museum in UP #295. In early 2011, Center Art’s revised proposal called for a Northwest Art Gallery of about 2,700 square feet located across from the Space Needle on Thomas St. and featuring work by local artists. The gallery was to be free to the general public.

Photo credit: Nick Licata

When Center Art was unable to include the Northwest Art Gallery in their final proposal, my office provided authority within their lease agreement for Seattle Center to operate one.  Although Seattle Center currently has no such plans, I will continue to encourage its director, Robert Nellams, to open such a gallery for local artists to display and sell their work on campus.

In the mean time, Seattle Center will be taking a small step in that direction by hosting a temporary exhibition in July featuring work associated with the Pilchuck Glass School. Keep an eye on Seattle Center’s website for details to become available.

For more information on Chihuly Garden and Glass, visit their website.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.