COMMENTARY: If a strong mayor can make a difference in the arts, what kind of difference will New York's next mayor make?
By Chad Fasca
New York City's next mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is a self-made billionaire, a political neophyte and a conundrum. He ran on the Republican ticket, but his views do not always obey the party line. And, because his own personal finances won him the election, he does not owe his party anything, either. This puts him in an exceptionally powerful position. However, he lacks government experience, meaning city government insiders will probably be asked to shape and push his agenda.
What Bloomberg assumes is one of the most envied jobs in America; however, he assumes the job in the least envious of circumstances: following a (now) popular mayor and leading a city gripped by crisis. With neither a prior track record nor a strong opinion about the city's direction, he inherits a New York rocked by tragedies and engulfed in a mushrooming economic crisis.
The Numbers Don't Lie
The Bloomberg administration will have to cope with massive job losses, bigger than previous expected, and a dramatic decline in city funds. Analysts expected New York to lose between 80,000 and 115,000 jobs as a result of the attack and economic downturn, "but not all in one month," writes reporter Leslie Eaton in the Friday, November 16th edition of The New York Times. She reports that the city lost 79,000 jobs in the month of October alone (the largest single month decline on record). Jobs are not the only thing contracting in New York. The city's coffers are also shrinking. The Independent Budget Office, the city's fiscal monitor, reported that New York City tax revenues will fall short by $925 million this year and as much as $1.8 billion next year.
These raw facts are joined by more subjective evidence like the rash of newspaper articles looking back nostalgically on the New York of the last eight years. These articles warn New Yorkers to brace for the return to the days of litter-lined streets and sidewalks. To flip The New York Times advertising slogan on its head, they are saying: "Expect the Worst."
Arts Groups Prepare to Suffer
This same message is circulating among artist groups and arts institutions. In Sunday's The New York Times, Robin Pogrebin wrote that the Center for an Urban Future, a nonpartisan policy group that focuses on economic issues concluded that "nonprofit arts organizations are entering their rockiest period in over 30 years."
But Pogrebin spent much of her energy examining the impact of the attacks and the budget crisis on major arts institutions, many of whom fall into the Cultural Institution Group (CIG) category, a protected class of arts groups.
Thirty-four organizations are designated CIGs, city-funded cultural institutions that are all located on city-owned and maintained property. Many of these organizations were created as public/private partnerships in which the institution provides the programming and the city provides infrastructure. Others won admittance due to their prestige and preceived cultural value to the city. Regardless of how they got there, membership in this group has its privileges. The bulk of the city's funding commitment to the arts goes to these cultural institutions, which consist of museums, botanical gardens, zoological parks, theaters, and historical societies.
CIGs undoubtedly will suffer in New York City's funding winter (Pogrebin's article illustrates that many have already), but most have substantial endowments to fall back on. The same cannot be said for smaller arts groups. They largely lack a financial buffer for the tough times ahead. And even though they receive substantially less assistance from the city and the state, these organizations rely more heavily on every ounce of income they receive.
This raises an important question that the Mayor-elect should address: Can the city redistribute its diminishing wealth to aid those most in need of city assistance or do we maintain the status quo and continue to fund CIGs--call it survival of the fattest?
Let's examine the issue. Probably the last to lose pledges (and audiences) and the first to receive new ones, CIGs are recognized, bankable institutions that will likely be the fastest arts groups to recover from the economic crisis. Meanwhile, small theatre and dance companies--the first to lose pledges (and audiences) and the last to receive funder support--will struggle just to survive the crisis. If the city made deeper-than-needed cut into CIG funds and distribute the difference to smaller theatre companies, such as those in the Ground Zero area, smaller groups would stand a better chance to survive.
Some evidence suggests that the mayor-elect would be receptive to idea of redistribution. When asked by the Women's City Club of New York in a pre-election questionnaire (August 2001) about what his priorities were in determining capital budget needs among various groups including cultural institutions, Bloomberg responded:
"I believe it is important to assure that the cultural institution groups receive funds necessary to assure that New York City continues to be the cultural capital of the world. Investment is necessary to maintain our vibrant quality of life and to attract visitors and tourists to our museums, theatres and parks. However, I would make it a priority to insure that small cultural groups receive an adequate share of capital funding."
Letting smaller groups compete for funds may dovetail with Bloomberg's entrepreneurial beliefs. Or he could decide to cut all non-CIG funds to preserve CIG funding levels as much as possible, something leaders of small arts organizations and their advocates fear most.
So where does he lean? It is hard to say. He has kept silent on his plans for the city. Is it possible to sway him? If so, what kind of argument can the non-profit theatre community make? We'd love to know your thoughts.
------
Write to us at: memberspeak@actorsupdate.com
