Ed Lazere, the executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, has an interesting piece in the current Hill Rag analyzing the Mayor's budget proposal for arts funding in 2007. Noticing large amounts of cash in the budget set aside for repairs and expansion of a handful of private cultural institutions — notably $8 million to repair the roof at the Corcoran Gallery of Art and an additional $5 million for Arena Stage's expansion — Lazere cries foul at the apparently aribitrary, even mysterious process by which these types of funds seem to be allocated.

The proposed 2007 budget shows $9 million for the Commission on Arts and Humanities, but total arts funding sprinkled throughout the budget adds up to at least $35 million. Most of it shows up in the budget of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. While supporting the arts should be part of a broad economic development strategy, it would be far better to list all arts funding in one place, presumably the Commission on Arts and Humanities. Doing this would lead, I hope, to better discussions about how to set priorities in this area.

He has a point, though we're guessing that a significant reason for funneling art institution development funds through the Planning and Economic Development office is the fact that it is more adept at handling the financing of large construction projects than the Commission on Arts and Humanities.

After reading the entire article, though, one sees that transparency isn't really what's bothering Lazere. Instead he appears to be uncomfortable with the size and nature of D.C.'s contribution to private arts facilities. He argues that public monies should only be spent on public institutions, like, he points out, his "son's school" or the Commission on Arts and Humanities, which "supports programs for youth, public art displays, and neighborhood-based arts programs."

No one can argue that many D.C. schools could use a facelift, but the realities of budget crafting are rarely as cut and dry as taking something from column A and moving it over to column B, and Mayor Williams has certainly made no secret that his #1 priority is economic development. Lazere concedes that "supporting the arts should be part of a broad economic development strategy," but what he doesn't take into account is that most private non-profit arts entities rely on financing from a variety of sources, almost always including public (though not federal) funds. If D.C. chose not to help our private museums and theaters, many of them would cease to exist altogether. And while the Arts Commission certainly does a lot of good, we have, in the past, questioned their taste, so perhaps they shouldn't be the sole recipient of public arts funding.

The question of priorities for arts funding is a good one, however. The District made a committment to help Arena Stage, one of the leading lights of local theater, expand last year, and no one really seems to be suggesting that it should fail to make good on that promise, despite additional costs. But the Corcoran Gallery is a much more complex case. After having suffered several major upheavals in the last year, after losing the Gehry addition and months after firing half of its curatorial staff, the Corcoran has been suffering from a lack of focus and mission. Whether investing $8 million in infrastructure for a struggling private museum is a wise move is certainly up for debate.

No one wants to see the Corcoran disappear, but we certainly don't want to buy them a new roof and then watch them promptly sink into irrelevancy. Although it did not involve an organization with the same level of reputation or prestige as the Corcoran, perhaps the recent brouhaha over the Source Theater can be instructive. In that case, the District gave close to $1 million to help the Source make renovations, only to watch as the theater's management drove the company into bankruptcy. In order to pay back what it owed, the company was then forced to sell their building to developers with plans to turn the space into a bar and grill. Both the neighborhood and the local arts community became outraged by the loss of creative space in the city. It's one of those long standing questions: In what sort of city do we want to live? One that has a vibrant arts and cultural community that attracts both local residents and tourists, or one that keeps strict control over money spent on investments that might eventually come back to haunt us?