92 replies to this topic

[Halo_Override]

Hi, all. New poster here. I've been lurking as part of my research as I consider a move back to Victoria, but rather than introduce myself in detail I'll just start in on a new thread.

The news I'm reading about the arts funding agreements essentially being torn up by the government is really worrisome to me.

I know there are plenty of people in the world who think funding of arts by government is inherently a waste of cash. On the flipside, there are those who feel that using government money to subsidize and attract business (especially natural-resource-based) is a waste. One thing the Campbell Liberals seem to have accomplished is making a wide variety of people distrust them. It's clear, at any rate, that an agreement with the BC government these days is not worth much.

I remember the art scene there as not shy... Is there an uproar brewing about this stuff, or are people just taking it in stride and getting on with things as best they can? (I know the news just broke, and that people are still absorbing it...)

An active local cultural and political scene is a main feature of what I liked about Victoria when I was last there as a resident, and I'm highly motivated to know if I would still feel a sense of that if I choose to return...

(Also, if this would be better in Victoria and South Island Economy, let me know.)

[yodsaker]

Yup, cut the arts.
But hands off the fat pay raises for Gord, his cronies and accomplices, assorted toadies and others parked at the trough.

[Caramia]

Welcome to VV - and out of the lurkers shadows!

[Mike K.]

Wasn't federal funding cut for some arts programs not too long ago? I don't remember the details but those cuts ruffled some feathers here.

[VicHockeyFan]

Intrepid Theatre got $35,000 cut. That's out of their $800,000/yr operating budget.

The head guy said on CFAX, "this come right as we have 20,000 people converging on the Fringe Festival this week".

Sounds like they could just hit up each Fringer for $1.75 and they'd be back where they were.

[AnonAnnie2]

B.C. government to restore $20 million in grants to community groups

[VicDuck]

This is terrible governance. If art can't sell itself then why should taxpayers be forced to pay?

[Caramia]

Art sells everything around it. For studies on how it sells derelict areas of our urban environment google "artist led gentrification." For evidence of how it can be leveraged to create economic success in a wide variety of other supposedly unrelated endeavors google "Michael Williams" or "Chemainus" or "Jones Cola."

Events like Jazz Fest create economic spin offs that are reaped by the city as a whole. Positive externalities benefit the provincial economy, but often, not the organizers directly. The fair thing is to count those spin offs as due in portion to the Jazz Fest. And then pay them the portion that is due.

[AnonAnnie2]

This is terrible governance. If art can't sell itself then why should taxpayers be forced to pay?

Caramia is bang on VicDuck.

[VicDuck]

Events like Jazz Fest create economic spin offs that are reaped by the city as a whole. Positive externalities benefit the provincial economy, but often, not the organizers directly. The fair thing is to count those spin offs as due in portion to the Jazz Fest. And then pay them the portion that is due.

Then the organizers should charge people in order to get what they think they are owed. If there that good, people will come despite the price.

[Baro]

Arts funding is like road funding, it's something everyone in the area benefits from and doesn't tend to work out that well when not done publicly.

[Caramia]

Then the organizers should charge people in order to get what they think they are owed. If there that good, people will come despite the price.

Why? The people coming to the attraction are not the ones receiving the benefit, so they shouldn't have to pay. It is the people around the attraction that benefit, the restaurants, retail stores, kabuki cabs, real estate agents, property owners... the list goes on.

There are calculations that determine roughly how much of an economic spin off each arts or sports attraction creates. It is a bit more difficult to calculate the dollar value of things like cultural capital. But we could do assessments for each one, and remit a fair portion back to the attraction. Charge the kabuki cab driver a percentage of each trip to Jazz Fest, and charge the hotel that books the rooms a percentage for business brought to them. We could shave it off property taxes for anyone whose condo value is raised by being close to festivals or attractions. We could peel it off provincial tourism revenue, survey each new home owner that buys in BC to see how many of them found the lively cultural scene to be one of their reasons for wanting to live there, and then remit a portion of their purchase to the festivals... We could make it an exact science.

Of course, doing all those economic assessments would cost an arm and a leg - probably more than most of the funding packages are worth, and I am not sure who would pay for that. Perhaps those who needed the proof that there are spin offs. But anyone with a degree in economics or urban geography would suddenly be in high demand for a job! So I'd be in favour!

[VicDuck]

You missed my point exactly Caramia. People pay to see the opera. If no one comes and pays then there is no opera. This should be the same for all art.

[Jill]

But the ticket price for the opera doesn't completely pay for the production. That's why the opera company also relies on government grants, private donations and corporate sponsorship.

[Phil McAvity]

^but the opera, like any musical venture is a business because the singers and musicians make a living off it (most make a rather meagre living but one nonetheless) and if they are extremely good they make a good living off it, so why should the taxpayers be on the hook to subsidize their vocation? Music, like the arts, should be self-supporting. It shouldn't cost the taxpayer anything. The taxpayer doesn't subsidize lawyers or waiters or salesmen, so what makes musicians and artists so important that they should receive government largesse? If something can't be self-supporting, it shouldn't exist.

I agree in principle with the Liberals cutting arts funding even though they kind of ****ed it up because sadly, they were legally obligated to provide that funding.

Baro, not everyone benefits from arts funding. I would argue there are many that don't benefit. For example I have no interest in Folkfest or Jazzfest so why should I (through my taxes) be forced to help pay for them?

[AnonAnnie2]

One could argue the same for all manner of subsidies...how about sports hmmmm.....? (many sports facilities require grants etc. to stay open) or how about parks? they don't pay for themselves.

Imagine for one moment a world without art, or...sports, or parks.

There are spin-off benefits to all sorts of things by having those sports facilities, parks and of course arts.
Without them everything from housing sales to tourism would be negatively affected.

If there was some method to collect from everyone who 'benefits' you can bet there would be no more 'starving' artists and survival jobs would go wanting for a body to fill the position! (many food servers for example are involved in the 'arts').

BTW......the opening of my show is free to anyone who would like to attend...wine, cheese, good company and as good, art! (at least I hope you feel that way)...but if you would like to pay me to attend on the 18th I'll happily take your money!

[davek]

The positive externality argument is frequently made for things like public parks, sports teams and facilities, and public art, and it is almost always without merit. In most cases there are easily identifiable parties who receive direct benefit from the project and who know they can further their own benefit by obtaining a subsidy. They argue that since 'society' will benefit from their project, it is only fair that 'society' pay for that benefit.

In truth, it is not society that pays or benefits, but individuals. When a project gets a subsidy, many individuals pay far out of proportion to any benefit they receive, if indeed they benefit at all. Furthermore, I have never heard a good defense for the idea that providing a benefit to someone without their approval entitles the benefactor to demand payment.

[AnonAnnie2]

The positive externality argument is frequently made for things like public parks, sports teams and facilities, and public art, and it is almost always without merit. In most cases there are easily identifiable parties who receive direct benefit from the project and who know they can further their own benefit by obtaining a subsidy. They argue that since 'society' will benefit from their project, it is only fair that 'society' pay for that benefit.

In truth, it is not society that pays or benefits, but individuals. When a project gets a subsidy, many individuals pay far out of proportion to any benefit they receive, if indeed they benefit at all. Furthermore, I have never heard a good defense for the idea that providing a benefit to someone without their approval entitles the benefactor to demand payment.

Did you recently acquire an economics degree? didn't we all? lol!
- "almost always without merit" - can you give me examples? For fun have a look at Ronald Coase, the Coase Theorem.

Lets have a look at what a 'society' actually is:

A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, comprising also possible characters or conditions such as cultural identity, social solidarity, or eusociality. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals that share a distinctive culture or institutions. Like other groups, a society allows its individual members to achieve individual needs or wishes that they could not fulfill separately by themselves, without the existence of the social group.

and; other positive externality argument examples are:

• A beekeeper keeps the bees for their honey. A side effect or externality associated with his activity is the pollination of surrounding crops by the bees. The value generated by the pollination may be more important than the value of the harvested honey.

• An individual planting an attractive garden in front of his house may provide benefits to others living in the area, and even financial benefits in the form of increased property values for all property owners.

• An individual buying a product that is interconnected in a network (e.g., a video cellphone) will increase the usefulness of such phones to other people who have a video cellphone. When each new user of a product increases the value of the same product owned by others, the phenomenon is called a network externality or a network effect. Network externalities often have "tipping points" where, suddenly, the product reaches general acceptance and near-universal usage, a phenomenon which can be seen in the near universal take-up of cellphones in some Scandinavian countries.

• Knowledge spillover of inventions and information - once an invention (or most other forms of practical information) is discovered or made more easily accessible, others benefit by exploiting the invention or information. Copyright and intellectual property law are mechanisms to allow the inventor or creator to benefit from a temporary, state-protected monopoly in return for "sharing" the information through publication or other means.

• Sometimes the better part of a benefit from a good comes from having the option to buy something rather than actually having to buy it. A private fire department that only charged people that had a fire, would arguably provide a positive externality at the expense of an unlucky few. Some form of insurance could be a solution in such cases, as long as people can accurately evaluate the benefit they have from the option.

• A family member buying a movie or game will provide a positive externality to the rest of the family, who can then watch the movie or play the game.

• An organization that purchases a large screen and projector will give benefits to those who may use the screen for various purposes.

• Home ownership creates a positive externality in that homeowners are more likely than renters to become actively involved in the local community. For this reason, in the US interest paid on a home mortgage is an available deduction from the income tax.

• Education creates a positive externality because more educated people are less likely to engage in violent crime, which makes everyone in the community, even people who are not well educated, better off.

[AnonAnnie2]

more important....
Nobody is demanding....only holding the government to what was agreed to in the first place.

Today's TC
The B.C. government has raked in billions of dollars in gambling revenue over the past six years but failed to honour a promise to give one-third of the cash to non-profit groups, says the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming.
The association, which represents thousands of organizations that receive lottery money, is threatening to sue the government for reneging on a 1999 memorandum of understanding that promises charities at least 33 per cent of net gaming revenues.
For this year, the government has budgeted to give non-profits, such as theatre groups and victims services associations, more than $160 million in gaming grants.
But the grants represent only about 15 per cent of a total $1.08 billion in net gaming revenue -- far less than one-third.

And the money comes only after the province backtracked Wednesday in the face of outrage and pledged to restore millions of dollars in funding it had planned to cut.

The provincial government has failed to follow the agreement almost since it was signed, said Cheryl Ziola, executive director of the charitable gaming association.
The memorandum was agreed to under the NDP in 1999; the Liberals came to power in 2001.
"It's right there in black and white," said Ziola. "We have not heard of any new legislation that contravenes our [agreement]."
The association's lawyers are examining the memorandum to determine how well it will stand up in court, she said.
Some of the agreement's language is unclear in terms of what revenue is considered gaming. However Ministry of Housing and Social Development staff were unable to provide an explanation or offer alternate figures.
Based on its own annual reports, the government has failed to give charities one-third of its casino and bingo revenue for at least the last six years. Annual reports were unavailable beyond then.
In 2003-04, the province provided non-profit groups 30 per cent of $438.6 million. But the percentage contribution has shrunk over the years, even as gambling expanded in popularity and the government received significantly more cash.
By 2008-09, charities received less than 19 per cent of $834.3 million from casino and bingo earnings.
Over six years, the government received more than $4 billion in casino and bingo revenue but paid out around $853 million to charities -- roughly 21 per cent.
Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman, who presides over gaming revenue and charity grants, said yesterday he doesn't think those figures are fair because they fail to account for all bingo money given to community groups. His staff, however, was unable to provide numbers to support his assertion.
The NDP lambasted Coleman's ministry for its lack of information.
"I suspect it's like most things, they can't provide the evidence because they have in fact breached the agreement and they'll try and avoid this issue for as long as they can," said Shane Simpson, housing critic.
"Government has not fulfilled the terms of that memorandum of understanding. How do they explain that, or have they basically dismissed that agreement, as they've torn up contracts for hospital workers and breached other agreements?"
The memorandum also contained a promise from the province to "consult in a meaningful way with charities in the development of gaming policy changes that may affect charities."
But the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming says it received no advance notice of a government announcement last month that it was refocusing
gaming grant money toward programs for public safety and at-risk children -- leaving hundreds of arts and sports groups with rejection letters.

[davek]

"almost always without merit" - can you give me examples?

Most certainly. Subsidization of various music festivals is frequently justified on the grounds that they provide positive externalities to local hotels, restaurants, transportation operators, and the local population In fact, festival operators choose to host their events in locations where these amenities are available, knowing that it will increase attendance. They are, in fact, as much beneficiaries as benefactors. The argument that they are entitled to subsidy because they create positive externalities is, therefore, without merit.

For fun have a look at Ronald Coase, the Coase Theorem.

The Coase Theorem explains how optimal outcomes will occur when property rights are clearly defined. It is no defense of subsidy on the grounds of externalities.

Lets have a look at what a 'society' actually is:

However it is defined, there is no altering the fact that it is individuals that benefit or pay. To argue that 'society' benefits from a subsidy obscures the fact that one group suffers from the transfer of wealth to another.

and; other positive externality argument examples are:

No one has suggested that positive externalities don't exist, but rather that they are weak justification for handing out subsidies. Your beekeeper example is particularly instructive.