Thursday June 14, 2007

The City of Miami has approved $2 million for the planning of MAM’s new building, despite the objections of some.

Tags: ,

 

comments powered by Disqus
  1. Not impressed.    Thu Jun 14, 05:41 PM #  

    Just think about this:

    Homelessness
    Hunger
    Understaffed schools
    Roads and bridges that need repair

    A new art museum being built less that two miles from an old art museum.

    2 million dollars of Government and tax payer money.

    Only in Miami. The ART museum gets the money.

    This town needs its head examined.



  2. Gabriel J. Lopez-Bernal    Fri Jun 15, 07:57 AM #  

    Think even more about this before you speak:

    Municipal Bonds
    Voted on by Miami residents
    Approved such new facilities

    State Tax cuts = Understaffed schools

    Old art Museum = 24,000 ft^2, New Museum = 125,000 ft^2

    Only in Miami do people object so misinformed to cultural progress…



  3. alesh    Fri Jun 15, 08:17 AM #  

    I got a chuckle out of that comment without even having to resort to facts, Gabriel. Miami’s the only city in the world that supports culture while there are hungry and homeless people and roads in need of repair? Think about that — it’s fucking Pluto.



  4. Gabriel J. Lopez-Bernal    Fri Jun 15, 09:14 AM #  

    I think throwing cheap shots at a $200 Million Cultural facility so late in the game is useless…

    Personally, I think we have bigger fish to fry with regards to government financial waste. The “property insurance crisis” is nothing but a ploy to benefit the rich of our state, while further straining our local municipal resources, yet nobody seems to care or even take notice.

    Forget roads, how about the fact that nobody is investing in our transit infrastructure, our education, our water and power grids…That’s where the real problems in this city lie. Until we come up with reasonable solutions to those, i think its petty to argue that the money allocated through voter approved bonds could be better spent…



  5. Not Impressed    Fri Jun 15, 09:31 AM #  

    Does anyone have the ballot wording from when this museum was voted for?

    I seem to remember that it was worded in such a way that you needed a Phd Degree in Political Double Speak to fully understand if you were voting for or against the new museum.

    The public was Hood-winked into voting for this new museum.

    I say Preserve the city’s green space. Clean up the park and plant more trees.

    This city needs more museums like it needs more stadiums!?

    good grief.



  6. harlan erskine    Fri Jun 15, 01:20 PM #  

    if we really wanted to preserve the green space we should have stood up when midtown miami was proposed. That could have been one of Miami’s biggest parks and instead all we get is more malls, big box retail and condos.



  7. J-J    Sat Jun 16, 04:33 PM #  

    yeah I remember that ballot question it should have been worded better imho



  8. Not Impressed    Tue Jun 19, 09:48 AM #  

    Wording of the Ballot Question Anyone?

    If this was brought to the attention of the media I believe that everyone would agree that the public was Hookwinked into voting for this new Uber Museum on the bay.

    Also, it strikes as a bit irresponsible to want to house a world class multi million dollar art collection so close to the water?!

    Isn’t that putting the art at risk?



  9. R Emmer    Sun Jun 24, 10:37 PM #  

    Yes, it is true the referendum questions were completely deceitful. The 75 words never mentioned museums or parks. No voter could show up at the polls and know they were voting to give away priceless waterfront park land. The County question discussed money for Head Start programs. “Head Start”. That was a code word to appeal to lower income voters and to any voters who liked children.

    Worse, the Miami Art Museum has a piddling collection and no endowment.

    Watch. This is another Performing Art Collection all over again.