A case study in regionalism: An examination of the efforts to enact a regional funding mechanism to support the arts and culture sector in Greater Philadelphia By Lindsey S. Crane September 16, 2013 THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Master of Science in Arts Administration Drexel University By Lindsey S. Crane ***** Drexel University 2013 Approved by _______________________________ Advisor Name, Degree Advisor Graduate Program in Arts Administration Copyright by Lindsey S. Crane 2013 ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to examine the past attempts at establishing a regional funding mechanism to support arts and culture organizations in the Greater Philadelphia area and to make recommendations regarding any future attempts to secure dedicated, public funding for the sector. This paper will specifically examine the use of a tax as a dedicated source of revenue for public funding by examining other, well-known dedicated tax case studies and interviews with past leaders in regional funding attempts. While the Greater Philadelphia region has a large and robust arts and culture sector, it is not likely that a dedicated tax is the right mechanism to increase public support for the sector. Aside from specific and unique opportunities to enact such a tax, the sector needs to establish a stronger regional identity and case for support to give any future dedicated tax campaigns the potential for success. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am eternally grateful for the guidance and wisdom of my thesis advisor, Thora Jacobson, without whom this paper would not exist. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Julie Hawkins. It was in Julie’s seminar class that the topic of this paper was first conceived. Allison Finkelstein, Amy Gibbs, Susan Kane, and Anne Schoemaker also contributed greatly to the research and planning process. I am grateful for their encouragement, motivation, and thoughtful advice. I would like to extend a special thank you to Nick Crosson, who provided kind advice and data for this paper, as well as the entirety of the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance staff, who graciously hosted me for two days and gave me access to all of their primary research regarding the topic of regional funding mechanisms in the Greater Philadelphia area. This paper and the sector in general, would not be what they are without their immense data collections and reporting. Lastly, I would like to extend an additional special thanks to all of the interview participants who shared their time and thoughts so candidly with me. It is from their experiences that the sector can learn from the past and develop the best options for increasing public support for the arts in Greater Philadelphia in the future. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….…ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….…iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...iv INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..…..1 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………….…..4 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………..22 CASE STUDIES ON CURRENT DEDICATED TAXES FOR THE ARTS………………………………………………………….24 ALLEGHENY REGIONAL ASSET DISTRICT…………………....25 SCIENTIFIC CULTURAL AND FACILITIES DISTRICT……….30 METROPOLITAN ZOOLOGICAL PARK AND MUSEUM DISTRICT…………………………………………………………....36 CUYAHOGA COUNTY CIGARETTE TAX………………………..40 SALT LAKE COUNTY ZOO, ARTS, AND PARKS TAX…………45 MACOMB, OAKLAND, AND WAYNE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX MILLS FOR THE DETROIT ZOO AND INSTITUE OF ART…52 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ARTS AND CULTURE FUNDING IN PHILADELPHIA…………………………………………………………64 A BRIEF NOTE ON ARTS AND CULTURE FUNDING IN SUBURBAN PHILADELPHIA…………………………………………………………71 PAST ATTEMPTS AT A REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISM IN THE GREATER PHILADELPHIA AREA…………………………………..76 GENERAL TAXATION IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY……………….93 DEMOGRAPHICS OF ARTS LEADERS………………………………..102 CHALLENGES TO SUCCESSFULLY PASSING A DEDICATED TAX TO SUPPORT THE ARTS IN THE GREATER PHILADELPHIA REGION…………………………………………….104 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND SUBURBS……...104 FUNDING MECHANISM STYLE AND DISTRIBUTION…....….108 iv ENVIRONMENT……………………………………………………112 POLITICS……………………………………………………………115 LACK OF A STRONG CASE FOR SUPPORT…………………..117 NO DIVERSE BASE FOR SUPPORT…………………………….124 LACK OF RESOURCES…………………………………………..126 TAXATION IS UNPOPULAR……………………………………..127 EXISTENCE OF OTHER SOCIAL NEEDS AND BUDGETARY CRISES……………………………………………………………129 ISSUES WITH REGIONAL DEFINITIONS……………………..131 TIMING……………………………………………………………...132 ISSUES WITH VALUING THE PHILADELPHIA ARTS SCENE…………………………………………………….133 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………..135 IS A DEDICATED TAX FOR ARTS AND CULTURE SUPPORT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY IN GREATER PHILADELPHIA? ……………………………………………….137 THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE……….………………………….142 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………146 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………….149 APPENDIX A……………………………………………………..150 List of arts leaders interviewed for thesis APPENDIX B……………………………………………………..154 Map of Greater Philadelphia Five-County Region APPENDIX C…………………………………………………….155 Demographic data comparison APPENDIX D…………………………………………………….157 Timeline of Greater Philadelphia Regional Funding Mechanism Legislation SOURCES CITED……………………………………………….159 v INTRODUCTION Dedicated tax revenues for the arts are one of the most interesting and complicated forms of cultural policy that have been enacted in locations across the United States. Special dedicated tax districts where resulting revenues are distributed for the arts exist in many cities, counties, and, even, in the case of Minnesota, throughout entire states. Some of the most famous and successful examples of these include: St. Louis, Missouri; Denver, Colorado; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Salt Lake County, Utah; and San Francisco, California. There are also examples of areas where these taxes have been tried, but not successfully implemented, like Kansas City, Missouri and the Greater Philadelphia region. In general, dedicated taxes for the arts are revenues from a special tax in a specific area, which are distributed amongst local arts and culture (non-profit) organizations. In addition to arts and culture organizations, sometimes these revenues are distributed to other interest groups, like parks and recreation. Dedicated taxes for the arts come in a variety of forms and the most popular styles are sales, hotel/motel, and property taxes. In some tax areas, money is distributed to a specific set of institutions (eg. St. Louis, Denver) and in other areas the tax revenue is distributed through a competitive grant process (eg. 1 Allegheny and Cuyahoga Counties, and, again, Denver). In most cases, funds are distributed through a separate, non-political entity, board, or non-profit organization. While the type of tax and distribution method is unique to each location, it appears that these types of taxes tend to be enacted in larger metropolitan areas where there are a sizeable number of arts and culture organizations.1 The existence of a large quantity of arts and culture organizations within a location is not the most important factor in determining if a cultural tax district will be implemented, but it may help to create an active and supportive group of stakeholders to advocate for the implementation of such a tax. Politicians may be more willing to support taxation if the arts and culture sector in an area is so large that it creates a noticeable effect on the local economy and is indeed considered a huge part of an area’s identity. It is not easy to institute a tax—often a costly campaign is required for lobbying and advocacy for legislation. Across the nation dedicated tax districts for the arts share some similarities, but also differences. Six tax districts will be examined in this paper. Specifically, this paper will attempt to identify the process and method by which these programs were enacted, identifying any common themes that emerge amongst them. This paper will also examine why a dedicated tax for the arts has not been successfully implemented 1 The word sizable may imply that tax districts only occur in the most populous cities or metropolises and this is not always the case. An example can be found very distinctly in the state of Utah, where a local option tax for the arts was passed, enabling each county or town to enact a tax to support arts and culture organizations, regardless of the number of these institutions. In the case of Utah, several small towns have successfully activated the local option tax. Clearly, tax districts are not solely a “city phenomenon.” That said, the most well-known and researched of those are larger city-specific tax districts, like Denver, Colorado and St. Louis, Missouri. This paper will examine dedicated taxes enacted in larger, more populous areas because these cases more closely resemble the population size and quantity of organizations in the Greater Philadelphia region. 2 in the Greater Philadelphia region and will make recommendations for any future attempts. In terms of institutional culture, Philadelphia is one of the richest cities in the United States. The number of arts and culture organizations in Philadelphia is second only to New York and Washington D.C.2 In early 2011, Travel and Leisure magazine named Philadelphia the second best city in the country for “culture.”3 It is evident that the city has a diverse and thriving arts and culture scene and it is in many ways surprising that there is not a stronger mechanism for public support of the arts in the area. There have been numerous proposals and attempts to create a dedicated funding mechanism