First off, I want to say, I like museums. I like art museums best, but I find having a museum in a community a worthwhile resource. However, if said museum is getting a large grant from the City to pay for its rent — which will be increasing — maybe it’s time to look for some new cheaper digs? The Alameda Journal reports:
Though the museum, which documents Alameda’s past, reopened May 16, its own future remains hazy. Still on the table is a plan by the city to reduce the museum’s rent subsidy by 10 percent beginning next fiscal year.
Deputy city manager Lisa Goldman said the plan is for that money — about $4,700 a year — to go into a new city grant program for local arts groups.
“There’s a vast number of worthy groups here in town,” Goldman explained. “Everybody’s trying to find funding and there’s only a limited number of dollars to go around for all of these worthy groups.”
The Alameda City Council, when it considers next year’s city budget in June, will make the final decision on whether to authorize that plan. If it’s approved, the new arts and culture grant program could add up to about $50,000, Goldman said.
Giving a tour of the newly refurbished museum, Coler-Dark didn’t hide her frustration with the plan. She fears the effect of the funding loss and said she plans to lobby the council to continue the funding.
…
The city currently pays the museum’s annual $47,000 rent to the Alameda Masonic Association for space at 2324 Alameda Ave. Coler-Dark said that figure is being increased; a representative for the Masonic Association could not be reached for comment.
…
Meanwhile, the Naval Air Museum at Alameda Point is negotiating a new $1-a-month lease with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
City Councilman Frank Matarrese suggested that the museums consolidate to save money on insurance and overhead costs.
“The question of subsidizing the rent (for the Alameda Museum) is just a small question of what should be the city’s role in supporting museums,” Matarrese said. “And we’ve got a lot of them here. I wouldn’t want to see (the Alameda Museum) come to an end. I think there’s a way to support something that adds value to the city.”
I think Frank Matarrese’s idea is a fabulous one. Consolidation of the museums would be a great way to free up money for the Naval Air Musuem, Alameda Museum, and be able to contribue more money to a grants program for arts groups. It would require the Alameda Museum to move out to Alameda Point, but think of what the Alameda Museum could do with the space that would be available in one of the buildings on the Point. In fact, maybe they should hook up with the folks at Lucky JuJu/Neptune Beach Amusement Museum and incorporate all three into a consolidated museum showcasing the full history of Alameda. And, you could get some great cross advertising that way. For folks who only wanted to visit the Alameda Museum would be able see how interesting the Naval Air Museum is and come back for a visit sometimes else, etc… This consolidated Museum could become the eventual anchor of the civic core planned for the Point. And just think, the Alameda Museum could use the money for program related costs rather than rent, which would be a much better use of their subsidy. Additionally, if the space becomes big enough (and cool enough) there could be some extra money made hosting events (weddings, receptions, etc…) that could go back into program costs for the Museums.
It’s something to think about.
The collection at the Alameda Museum is interesting but small. After many, many visits I have finally exhausted my interest for close scrutiny of the permanent collection at Oakland’s California Museum, though I love to take out of towners there. It took far, far fewer trips before the Alameda museum lost it’s allure for me. Like two.
Lauren’s idea for an eventual venue at the future civic core at the Point is terrific. In the interim, joining up with the Naval Air museum is logical, but isn’t there question about their long term viability and ability to keep that space?
I’d like a head count on the numbers who visit both museums. That is not necessarily a direct reflection of the value of the exhibits, but it’s relevant to it’s perceived value to the public at large, which relates to justifying subsidies, etc.
FYI- I had my first visit to the Meyer’s House as part of the Critical Glass bicycle tour of stained glass in Alameda. It’s remarkable that the place is so well preserved. Really a time machine. Glass tour was great too.
Comment by Mark — May 25, 2007 @ 9:18 am
While I am concerned about how the City spends it’s money, I think that in this instance the amount of money in question is small relative to other expenditures that go unnoticed. If all of the City’s expenditures were subject to this degree of scrutiny, that would be one thing. But given the seeming lack of focus on the big expenditures, I think that this issue is quite ridiculous, frankly, to the point of being almost mean-spirited. Where were the fiscal conservatives when the City was transferring millions to support the telecom business? Where were they when the City declined to review the police salaries as allowed in the labor contract?
Museums almost always require subsidy of some kind, and I don’t think that moving it would solve that problem, though I don’t discount the concept of moving it for other reasons.
Comment by Mike Rich — May 27, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Mark,
Have you tried to get counts of how many visit the two museums you mentioned? I am sure it is all public info as well as the amount of subsidies they each are provided in various forms.
You will perhaps be happy to know new major displays are being planned for the Oakland museum. (Think trains)
Last month AAA magazine had an article on the value of ‘small town museums’.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 27, 2007 @ 9:26 am
If a belief in sound public finances makes one a “fiscal conservative,” fine, I accept the label, though “sensible” and “prudent” are really more accurate monikers.
Semantics aside, we “fiscal conservatives” were in the dark when the utility was self-immolating its balance sheet, primarily because the actions were intentionally not publicized.
Comment by dave — May 27, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Dave,
I should have avoided using the word “conservative” since that has negative connotations for some. Also, I was not referring to others who post on this blog or the citizenry at large, I was referring to those with budgetary authority.
The idea of merging and moving the museum may have merit because it might attract a broader audience that way. Whether the museum receives a subsidy or not is a different question, and I think it’s fair to point out that the amount of money being discussed is miniscule compared to other budget items that don’t receive the same scrutiny. In other words, the question of whether or not the museum gets merged and/or moved shouldn’t be tied to whether the City provides a subsidy, in my opinion.
Comment by Mike Rich — May 27, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Mike,
It was clear to me who you referred to by “fiscal conservatives”, that being those inside city hall who recommend cutting the subsidy.
I wouldn’t use AP&T or similar large budget items to make your point, but rather other petty items which now allude me, but which together exceed the museum subsidy. The one which got me at AUSD was a rented car for the superintendent.
The archive hounds could probably dig these up in a jiffy. $500 for in office coffee sound familiar?
Small local museums are great, but they are either captivating or not. The Oakland history room in the main library is great. If the Carnegie becomes a permit center there is talk of a gallery of historical displays, along with other material on the historic housing stock here and guides for quality restoration techniques.
Comment by Mark — May 27, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
A couple of thoughts:
First, did the Journal really publish two completely different rent figures: $4700 and $47,000?
Second, Why not throw in the Hornet museum (a regular money-loser and also city-subsidized). Create an Alameda Heritage Authority or Consortium.
Comment by nemo — May 28, 2007 @ 5:48 am
Good point Nemo, about the Hornet museum. I had totally forgetten about it (hence the need for cross adverstising).
Regarding the $4700 v. the $47K amounts. I believe the mention of the $4700 was the difference the Alameda Museum would need to make up as there are plans to cut the subsidy by 10%. So it sounds like in addition to needing to find the $4700 in rent, the Museum would also need to make up whatever the landlord decides to raise the rent amount.
Comment by Lauren Do — May 28, 2007 @ 7:36 am
I haven’t been to the Museum but $47,000 seem like a lot. It seems like a threat to move the Museum out should reduce the rent. What else can they do with that space, and if they can’t rent it they loose money in the long run.
Comment by Joel — May 29, 2007 @ 11:38 am
[...] the city council will be discussing how much to subsidize the Alameda Museum in the coming year. Initially discussed at Laurendo.com, since 1999, the city has been giving the museum money to cover its rent. The subsidy, originally [...]
Pingback by I’ve been this way before « Stop, Drop and Roll — June 18, 2007 @ 6:24 am