No abstract

No abstract

Historically governments have used art's universal language to achieve various goals, including political engagement through cultural enrichment. Employing nonprofit/public sector relationships for the arts presents myriad governance challenges, but always with the promise of intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. This chapter presents two cases to illustrate such collaborative relationships. Applying various nonprofit theories, stakeholder discussions and Sherry R. Arnstein's still relevant community engagement work to explore relationships between sectors in arts funding, the first involves the passage of a local tax to provide funding for arts education and arts organizations. The second illustrates an instrumental relationship between a local government and nonprofit to provide art programs to promote tolerance in an increasingly diverse community. Both cases present imperfect policies, but represent the continuation of an ancient practice wherein the arts are being used for more than arts' sake, but to serve a multitude of non-arts instrumental societal functions.

In spite of profound changes in fa. rnily structure, most zoning ordinances "remain basically unyielding in their nostalgic interpretation of 'correct' community land patterns in which work, home, and services are spatially separated" (Ritzdorf 1994:117). Perin concurs with this assertion: Land-use planning, zoning, and development practices are a shorthand of the unstated rules governing what are widely regarded as correct social categories and relationships-that is, not only how land uses should be arranged, but how land users, as social categories, are to be related to one another (Perin 1977:3). 12 The importance of the classification of land uses and the location of land use zone boundaries has moved front and center for so-called "New Urbanists" and "neo-traditional" planners. They believe that land uses are segregated, transport mechanized, and public spaces fragmented "not because of economics or planning philosophies, but because our planning tools, especially the zoning ordinances, mandate it" (Calavita 1994:535). Nee-traditionalists reject the long held belief that land use patterns are mostly a result of economic forces: Along with I the] sticky question of physical and social form is the erroneous belief that our community's physical form is the result of free choice, the market's wisdom, and the statistical sum of our collective will. In reality, our patterns of growth are as much a result of public policy and subsidies, outdated regulations [zoning], environmental forces, technology, and simple inertia as they are a result of the invisible hand of Adam Smith (Calthorpe 1993:10). In Tire Next American Metropolis.: Ecology, Conmwnity, and tlze American Dream (1993), Calthorpe claims that in addressing the problems of the fractured city, he is taking an "ecological" approach: This book is about the ecology of communities. Not about the ecology of natural systems-but about how the ecological principles of diversity, interdependence, scale, and decentralization can play a role in our concept of suburb, city and region .... These principles stand in stark contrast to a world dominated by specialization, segregation, lack of scale, and centralization (Calthorpe 1993:9).

Historically governments have used art's universal language to achieve various goals, including political engagement through cultural enrichment. Employing nonprofit/public sector relationships for the arts presents myriad governance challenges, but always with the promise of intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. This chapter presents two cases to illustrate such collaborative relationships. Applying various nonprofit theories, stakeholder discussions and Sherry R. Arnstein's still relevant community engagement work to explore relationships between sectors in arts funding, the first involves the passage of a local tax to provide funding for arts education and arts organizations. The second illustrates an instrumental relationship between a local government and nonprofit to provide art programs to promote tolerance in an increasingly diverse community. Both cases present imperfect policies, but represent the continuation of an ancient practice wherein the arts are being used for more than arts' sake, but to serve a multitude of non-arts instrumental societal functions.