Hm, Nick Licata alluded to this at last night's CapHill Arts Forum, not so much as a criticism of the expenditures on PPM & SC (both of which admittedly need some capital improvements), but rather, or so I thought, as suggestive of what the City could contribute to the capital needs of small arts orgs with even a fraction of that amount.
I don't quite understand what "open space" means. Or perhaps I understand something about that term that makes me wonder why any kind of public entity would want to attach themselves to it. It reminds me of open space requirements for big development that result in something not open (to the public, that is) or nowhere anyone would actually want to spend time.
"Parks" I get. Even "public land" sounds nice (= we all own it).
So, why is Seattle still paying for Seattle Parks and for King County Parks?
Time to stop subsidizing the suburbs.
Seattle Center is in desperate need of attention. That place is turning into a series of crumbling buildings surrounded by parking garages.
It needs help.
I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, Will... The Pro Parks Levy isn't subsidizing the 'burbs at all.
No, I mean we pay for a Seattle parks levy and we also pay for a King County parks levy.
Look, I pay my property taxes directly, so I know that I pay twice - even though everyone outside Seattle only pays the King County parks levy.
Total ripoff that the suburbs get such a sweetheart deal.
It was an interesting discussion. SGCI's series has been good so far, and I'm looking forward to what McGinn can deliver next.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).