Revisiting what I wrote about in 2010/2012 back to the fore: regional cultural funding in Greater Detroit

The Detroit News has an article, "2 Detroit museums seek same financial lifeline DIA, zoo got," about how two cultural institutions based in Detroit, but serving the metropolitan area, The Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History and the Detroit Historical Museum, are asking the state to put on the ballot a county millages in Wayne and Oakland Counties (they are avoiding Macomb County because of its continued animus towards the city; animus in Oakland County has declined as it has shifted Democratic, and L. Brooks Patterson ("The rise of Oakland County is built on Detroit's Fall") died).

In 2010 and 2012 I wrote about such initiatives for the Detroit Zoo (actually located in Oakland County) and the Detroit Institute of Arts, which were caught up in the city's bankruptcy.  Back in the days when center cities were preeminent, typically they provided the bulk of and the funding for cultural institutions.  As center cities have declined, they no longer have the financial resources to do so.

This is another side of the argument in "The real lesson from Flint Michigan is about municipal finance" (2016) in how the funding systems for local governments were created when cities were growing and successful, and we don't have new funding systems focused on the reality of current conditions.

In the writings on Detroit and arts funding, I said that it made more sense to pursue a master approach to fund cultural institutions more generally, rather than one at a time, as the political and organizational cost of the one at a time approach is wasteful and really really hard. 

The Detroit area has a long standing multi-county "tax" to fund the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Parks Authority, which was a New Deal era initiative.  The area is also having an impossible time creating a regional transit system based on a similar kind of funding system.

I mentioned the Regional Asset District in Pittsburgh as the primary example.  I don't think I was aware at the time of the Denver Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, which operates at a multicounty scale.

There are other forms too ("A comprehensive list of funding sources for arts and culture," 2019), like New York City's and the Zoo, Arts, Parks sales tax in Salt Lake County.  Hamilton County, Ohio tried to create one but failed.  Etc.

But these are the basic ones.

Conclusion.  One of the things that amazes me about the EU Commission is how it sets up various initiatives to capture and communicate best practices across the entire membership.  

One of the things that amazes me about the US is how we don't capture and communicate best practices in a systematic way across the states and cities ("4 cultural organizations/structural support initiatives that need wider replication," 2019).

It's no wonder that system improvement takes decades and incredible perseverance.

========

This is what I wrote in 2012 [links not re-checked]:

I haven't kept up with the issue.  I am not sure it passed, because there is a vote in August on a property tax levy for the Detroit Institute of Arts.  Also see "As millage vote looms, lawmaker and DIA spar over finances" from the Detroit Free Press.

I still think the best approach is regional, although it's hard to pull off.

Tom Murphy, first a legislator in Pennsylvania, and later long-time Mayor of Pittsburgh, created the infrastructure for the "Regional Asset District" in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which supports the big cultural institutions in the  city (museums, libraries, parks, etc.) but also cultural institutions throughout the county, through a county-wide levy.

That's what should be done in places like Detroit and Cleveland (in Cleveland they have a local levy on cigarette sales, "Cuyahoga County cigarette tax helping arts groups even as fewer people smoke" from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which isn't a very equitable way to fund the arts, even though I hate smoking...).

This ought to become a much bigger issue going forward, as local governments are going to be continually hard pressed financially and will have to make hard choices on what to fund.

Parks-related tax and bonding initiatives tend to pass at high rates, greater than 70%, so if you build the basis of support properly, despite the difficulties of working across multiple taxing jurisdictions, I think it's possible to do this for the arts, or to combine such initiatives.

A way for a metropolitan area to support arts institutions based in the center city (2010)

It will be a cold day in hell before most metropolitan areas are willing to merge the taxation streams into one funding stream that supports municipalities throughout a region, as Myron Orfield suggests in the book Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability.

On the other hand, there are more examples of center cities merging with the adjoining county for the provision of a significant number of services, and the tax revenue stream, such as in Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana, Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee, or Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky.

(And there are a number of examples of merged county-cities, such as San Francisco and Philadelphia, although this happened, at least for Philadelphia, more than 100 years ago.)

The Detroit Free Press has a story, "DSO could benefit from plan similar to DIA, zoo plan," about how there is a proposal to create a couple of regional taxes in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties in Michigan, to support the Detroit Institute of Arts, which is an institution based in the center city, but providing services to the entire region, and the Detroit Zoo (although the Zoo is located in Oakland County but owned by the city), and how a local representative, Rep. Vicki Barnett of Farmington/ Farmington Hills is suggesting that this concept be extended, and also provide support for the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, which faces significant budgetary problems and a strike by its musicians as a result of proposed changes in compensation and work requirements.

From the article:

Democrat Rep. Vicki Barnett said she hopes to muster support to add the DSO to a bill that would allow voters in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties to vote for a tax of up to 0.2 mills to help pay for the Detroit Institute of Arts.

That bill is before the House for final approval next week. Another bill would allow the tri-county voters to double the 0.1-mill tax for the Detroit Zoo they approved in 2008.

This is a good effort, but instead of creating a bunch of separate taxes, how about supporting cultural institutions more systematically, just as how the Regional Asset District was created in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to support cultural and civic institutions, primarily those located in Pittsburgh, which also serve regional audiences, but also to support institutions located in the county, not just the center city. (This helps strengthen support from jurisdictions other than the center city.) From the RAD website:

Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD) supports and finances regional assets in the areas of libraries, parks, cultural, sports and civic facilities and programs

In the Detroit area, there is a multi-jurisdictional parks district covering five counties, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan (Parks) Authority, which has functioned on a similar basis for 70 years, although this authority does not support all parks in the region, only certain designated parks under its purview and control. The authority was set up by the State.

And there are many examples of these kinds of taxing and/or operating districts across the U.S., from the Chicago Park District, which only receives monies from the City of Chicago, but which supports museums and facilities other than parks, to transit authorities.