Your final paragraph says it all.

The only people that will welcome this are rich art collectors, getting another effective subsidy.

Speaking of ignorance...there is no state legislative district named "Kent".

There is the 33rd which covers some of Kent that is west of 104th.

And the 47th which covers East Hill...among many other areas.

SROTU, it's referred to as Kent.

#3

"What" is referred to as Kent?

33rd District:

Cities in the district include Burien, Des Moines, Kent, Normandy Park and Sea-Tac...

http://seattlewebcrafters.com/wapolitics…

It says right on Karen Keiser's own web page "33rd Legislative District, Kent." That's presumably what Ms. Graves means.

You know it's a good thread when six out of seven comments are by or about Will in Seattle or Supreme Ruler (and the seventh is about dumping dead bodies).

I agree with you, Jen: asset-stripping is a terrible way to fund the future. When you're done, you've funded one day of public schools, and you've lost all the art. This is a dope-addict move.

Public art is part of our heritage. Public servants don't get to pawn it off. I can't believe anyone would be so tacky.

It's like taking an inheritance that isn't yours, that has more sentimental than monetary value, and trading it for a few bucks.

#7

Then both are wrong.

And both, presumably, are Democrats.

FFS, IT is ABOUT THE DUMBASS FROM KENT wanting to sell art. If she's not from Kent she is still a dumbass.

A democratic legislator should be advocating for the restructuring of taxes to pay for commonly needed services, increasing taxes on those best able to pay, and increasing creative and appropriate revenue streams to pay for the commissioning, administration and maintenance of more public art. We used to live in a world where such things were considered to be reasonable and desirable. To suggest any of these now is to be regarded as stupid and foolish. . .what has happened?