Fixing broken art

While sports teams line up for taxpayer handouts, the needs of deteriorating cultural facilities go unmet

When the owners of professional sports teams attempt to justify reaching into taxpayers' pockets to pay for luxurious new facilities, they invariably offer an economic rationale. They claim that the public investment they're seeking will pay for itself many times over in terms of development and increased business activity.

More often than not, the argument works. The Patriots recently won a $70 million package to help them build a new stadium in Foxborough. The Red Sox may be seeking as much as $200 million to build a modern, larger version of Fenway Park that would have a severe negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood -- and would, as it happens, force the Phoenix to move its headquarters (see the editorial "Fenway Fiasco," News and Features, June 11). Despite this, the Sox, too, have received a respectful hearing so far from the political and business communities.

Yet when arts advocates attempt to make the same case, few listen -- even though they have even stronger evidence to present than do sports teams.

The state legislature recently deferred action -- yet again -- on a proposal to create a $35 million fund to provide loans to fix up deteriorating arts and cultural facilities. The fund, to be paid for through a four percent increase in the hotel/motel tax in the communities that receive the loans, would represent just a small down payment on the estimated $500 million in infrastructure needs reported by some 400 arts and cultural organizations. Those needs range from a leaky roof at Roxbury's Museum of the National Center of Afro-American Artists to $30 million worth of restoration and repairs at Symphony Hall. But the proposal, following a hearing before the legislature's Joint Committee on Taxation, was shipped off to the graveyard of further study.

The legislative leadership should pull this bill out of the mothballs and put it on the fast track to approval.

According to a 1996 study by the Massachusetts Cultural Council, the more than 3000 nonprofit cultural organizations that make their homes in Massachusetts have a $2.56 billion annual impact on the state's economy. These organizations employ more than 45,000 people, and pull in an audience of some 45 million every year. Attendance at just three Boston museums -- the Museum of Fine Arts, the Museum of Science, and the New England Aquarium -- exceeds the total combined audience of the Red Sox, the Celtics, and the Bruins. And, of course, all of this activity contributes greatly to the amount of money spent on meals, gas, tolls, and other items -- which generates tax revenues that enhance the state's bottom line.

But though the economic rationale for arts funding is strong, it is only part of the story. The arts are a vital part of enlightened civilization, and they have an educational value that no sports team can claim. Yes, the audience for arts events is much bigger than for ball games, but that's important more for what it means than for the sheer numbers. At our core, we understand that culture is a more central part of our society than is mere fun and games. If only there were leather-lunged arts-radio hosts to bellow and demand money for museums and performance centers the way sports-radio pimps do for team owners!

House Speaker Tom Finneran does deserve credit for driving a hard bargain with the Patriots: by some estimates, the state will actually pull in $3 million a year more than it will spend on the 25-year assistance package because of income taxes, concessions, and fees the Patriots will pay to the state. Though the financial details are similar to those proposed a year earlier by Senate president Tom Birmingham, it was Finneran who took a firm stand against any public money going directly to a sports team -- thus establishing an important precedent for the Red Sox, who are now pulling up to the trough.

But if Finneran, Birmingham, and Governor Paul Cellucci have shown that investing in professional sports can pay off when it's done prudently, why does their vision go blurry when it comes to the investment needs of the arts-and-culture community?

"The quality of attractions within the state effectively cloaks the reality that the infrastructure supporting them is crumbling," according to a recent statement by Representative Peter Larkin (D-Pittsfield), who is co-sponsoring the loan-fund measure with Representative Kevin Fitzgerald (D-Boston). "The reality is that it's easier for these attractions to pursue an aggressive capital campaign for a new wing or new building than to raise dollars to repair the roofing or plumbing systems."

This is the second time that state action on the deteriorating infrastructure for arts and cultural organizations has been postponed. Several years ago, an attempt to attach the loan fund to the bill approving the convention center failed. If the proposal is to be revived, the legislature needs to hear from you. Call, write, or e-mail your state representative and senator, and urge them to support House Bill 2248. A complete list of legislators, by community, is available on the Web at http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm.

The arts are a fundamental part of who we are. Elected officials need to understand that investing in the arts is more important -- and makes more economic sense -- than helping professional teams build luxury stadiums.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.