Commission Vote Could Add 1.5% Fee On New Construction To Fund Public Art

Miami’s commission could make new development more expensive in order to fund public art.

The Art In Public Places Ordinance already passed the first reading, and is scheduled for a second reading on July 14.

TNM reader Albert Cabrera writes that the proposed new law is a mistake:

In summary the Arts in Public Places Ordinance proposes the implementation of an administrative board charged with the acquisition, disposition, and exhibition of art in public places. The board and the entire process (acquisition, curation, exhibition, and maintenance of the art), will be funded by a 1-1.5% fee assessed on the hard costs (construction, consultants, demolition) of all new, commercial and residential (more than 7 units) , development (public and private). This is a massive fee that will only raise rents and reduce the availability of affordable housing in Miami-Dade County.

According to Zumper, the median rent for a one-bedroom condo in Miami is $1,900 making Miami the eight highest rental market in the nation. Recently, the Planning and Zoning Appeals Board of the City of Miami unanimously voted to adopt an arts in public places ordinance which ultimately increases the cost of construction and development in order to fund the public display of art. The AiPP ordinance, levies an additional 1-1.5% fee on the Construction Costs (aka hard costs) component of— generally—all Public and Private Development (defined in the ordinance below) in order to promote art in public places. Based on our internal estimates, AiPP fee will add an additional million dollars ($1,000,000) of expense to a 300 unit building. Ultimately, this increase in cost will be absorbed by the consumer and will translate into less development and higher rents for market rate housing and less affordable housing projects being constructed through the city.

An administrative body, within the City of Miami, will be responsible for the administration and assessment of the fees. That same ordinance also creates an independent board responsible for the acquisition, curation, and exhibition of art. The City has wide discretion as to what is deemed art, what is procured and where the art is displayed. This program’s unspoken goal is to continue to attract foreign buyers, via the arts, in order to prop up prices for condominium developers which ultimately increases development costs and makes it more difficult to get rental projects built translating into less market rate and affordable housing inventory and higher rents.

The AiPP is ordinance is scheduled to go before the Commission, for second reading, on July 14, 2016. If the ordinance is passed and is then ultimately made law, it will have broad implications on public housing and market rate development and negatively impact the Citizens of Miami and job growth all for the benefit of luxury condo developers.

 

AiPP LegislationThe Next MiamiDocs.com

(photo: phillip pessar)

20 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
4 years ago

I would rather see a 1.5 % fee on new construction applied for new parks where needed within the city . A good example is Brickell West and Near the Brickell City Center Mall. There are thousands of new apartments being constructed there with almost zero parkland for children to play or green space for soccer or basketball. Swire owns the land next to the Miami River north of BCC. Place your chitty public art in the greenspace.

marc
4 years ago

Do you really think the amount this will produce will be enough to attain land for said greenspace in the neighborhoods you mention? Should money from a development in one neighborhood be used in another neighborhood?

Anonymous
4 years ago

That is part of the problem! The fees are being collected and there is no guarantee that they will actually be deployed in the neighborhood that generated the fees! Also, that fee is WAYYY to high for Arts in Public Places. The city will mismanange that the same way the mismanage everythign else!

Anonymous
4 years ago

To question one, yes if you bond it out. To question two, yes because anyone can use the park regardless of where you live.

IloveMiami
4 years ago

I like the park idea but art in the park would be better. Paris is filled with unexpected little green spaces usually with public art and a few benches. Parks don’t always have to have jungle gyms and basketball courts.

Anonymous
4 years ago

Would rather see the 1.5% fee go to mass rail transit. Key word RAIL!

Anonymous
4 years ago

I am going to oppose this. Just what we need: the city of Miami, in their absolute discretion, spending millions of dollars on useless art when we have all kinds of school, greenland, and infastrusture problems.

Anonymous
4 years ago

Dumb law…No need for this at all. Just another way to nickle and dime people.

mossack fonseca
4 years ago

lol as long as its not britto or botero, thats fine. i guess botero is more chill.

marc
4 years ago

I agree. Get that mass produced garbage out of here.

aceraroja
4 years ago

This was probably lobbied for by Britto’s agents, it seems the only way he makes money is by tricking government entities into buying his schlocky stupid work. I’m down with Botero but yeah some other real art would be good if they insist on this. It would still be better to use it for transit. And yes, several million dollars would help transit because it can be used for maintenance.

aceraroja
4 years ago

Also, Miami still has no protected in-grid bike lanes. A few 100k in Jersey barriers and paint would make a world of difference in cucling safety and ease.

Anonymous
4 years ago

1.5% fee should go to Mass Transit and the ordinance should be downtown buildings should not have to build parking spaces.

Anonymous
4 years ago

Most people do not know about this proposed ordinance! People need to show up to oppose this at the meeting on July 14, 2016.

Nicko
4 years ago

Why doesn’t Miami get real and earmark dollars to be spent in various business improvement districts on pedestrian streetscape improvements, i.e. sidewalk repair, shade trees, trash cans, recycling cans, benches, etc. Walking around Brickell as a pedestrian is a joke. Trash, dog mess, broken sidewalks, etc. everywhere.

marc
4 years ago

This is a realistic use of this 1-1.5% fee. The amount this fee would produce would not even make a dent on mass transit nor is it nearly enough to purchase land for greenspace. I don’t know how much you guys think this fee would really produce?

IloveMiami
4 years ago

The reason I enjoy walking/driving on Brickell ave is because it is the only strip that reminds me of a real city. Not just the buildings, but the wider sidewalks AND the public art in front of some of the buildings. Some have small fountains or water features as well. I support the idea of MORE public art, I don’t really care where the money comes from.

Anonymous
4 years ago

Is this serious? Jose Marti park is a mile away with a ton of stuff. Then you have the park at the icon and the newly renovated south side park.

IloveMiami
4 years ago

Like the idea. Love walking around Chicago looking at all the public art. We could use more fountains/water features too. More public art will enhance the cityscape. Miami will appear more mature/respectable. Not just clubs and beaches.

FH
4 years ago

Mass transit before art – nuff said.