Chapel Hill is one of the few cities in North Carolina that require public projects to devote 1 percent of their construction budget to public art. The program has put metallic birds outside the new fire station across from Southern Village and a tile mosaic inside the IFC Community House, among other projects. Now the town is weighing a proposal to double that to 2 percent and to also start asking private developers to do the same. What do you think? Share your comments and we'll publish some of them in a future issue of the Chapel Hill News.
Bookmark this:
2% contributes to unaffordability
There are many factors that contribute to Chapel Hill being unaffordable. We are approaching build-out--and scarce land becomes more expensive. There are few established neighborhoods left where a home can be found for under $300,000. We have little commercial development, and development projects face such resistance that commercial projects locate just outside of Chapel Hill's jurisdiction, pulling sales and property taxes out of Chapel Hill and Orange County. To support services and infrastructure, the tax rate steadily increases. Longtime homeowners of modest means struggle to pay property taxes--which in some cases exceed mortgage payments. Newcomers--police, teachers, nurses--are forced to purchase homes in Saxapahaw, Snow Camp, Efland, Hurdle Mills, Pittsboro. They are forced to commute, contributing to Chapel Hill's parking and traffic problems and a decreased quality of life for residents and commuters.
What does all of this have to do with 2% for public art? This is just one of many proposals which contribute to the unaffordability of Chapel Hill. Capital projects are not going to cost less. Land and construction costs will continue to climb. So doubling the percentage for public art will simply add nearly 1% more to the cost of capital projects. This seems insignificant, but 1% of the town operation center project was $420,000. Capital projects are paid for by taxpayers through bond payments. Given how much the overall costs of projects has increased, it seems that 1/2 percent for public art would maintain the commitment while demonstrating appropriate stewardship of public funds.
The issue is not art--but it is how issues which appear unrelated to affordability have a direct impact on affordability. The California consultant who drafted the public art proposal said that this would keep Chapel Hill among an "elite" group of public arts communities, and that only Santa Monica, California requires 2% for public and private projects. Santa Monica has a median home price of over $800,000. Traffic is a nightmare. Not exactly a mirror of Chapel Hill--yet. But if we don't start recognizing that decisions like this one ultimately contribute to an unaffordable community, Chapel Hill will have become not elite, but "elitist"--where people of modest means can come to work or to receive health care, or can send their children to college, but where they cannot live.