Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Art And Symbolic Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public art committee and residents urge council to halt planned crosswalk removal; RFP stipend and process questioned
Summary
Members of Salisbury’s Public Art Committee and several residents urged the council during public comment to stop or relocate an RFP-backed plan to remove or replace a community-sponsored rainbow/LGBTQ crosswalk. The committee said it is preparing formal removal/modification procedures; speakers criticized a $3,000 RFP stipend as insufficient.
Members of the Salisbury Public Art Committee and multiple residents used the May 12 public-comment period to press the City Council to halt plans to remove or replace a locally supported rainbow crosswalk that celebrates diversity.
“Susan Holt, and I'm a resident of Salisbury. … The city of Salisbury public art committee of which I'm the chair is composed of community members and art professionals,” said Susan Holt, chair of the Public Art Committee. Holt told council the committee opposes “the unilateral removal of a popular community sponsored crosswalk which celebrates diversity,” and said the PAC has prepared a draft amendment to the city’s Public Art Master Plan to clarify procedures for removing or modifying existing public art. Holt asked that the RFP for the crosswalk canvas at the proposed location either be withdrawn or moved to another intersection until formal removal procedures are ratified.
A second speaker, who identified herself as Caitie, criticized the mayor’s approach and the amount attached to the city's RFP. “Your RFP with a $3,000 stipend attached to it to find a qualified artist as defined by our public art master plan is frankly insulting to artists as a whole,” Caitie said. She argued $3,000 would not cover time, materials, labor and maintenance, and urged the mayor and staff to coordinate with the Public Art Committee on cost and site selection. Caitie asked that if a community-painting option is desired, the Public Art Committee should lead selection of location and process.
Mayor responded during the administration comments that he had met with city staff and intended the move as a way to address what he said were covenant issues and to avoid viewpoint-discrimination problems; he framed the approach as a transition to a community-based design. Council members and the human rights liaison later reiterated that they had discussed the crosswalks in committee meetings; some council members said they would work to preserve existing crosswalk artworks while seeking collaborative alternatives.
No formal council action on the crosswalks was recorded in the meeting minutes or the legislative votes on May 12. The matter remains a subject of public debate: the Public Art Committee says a formal amendment to the Public Art Master Plan clarifying removal and modification procedures is nearing completion and will be submitted for city review and ratification.
Ending: Councilmembers urged continued public engagement and told speakers the administration and relevant advisory committees will continue discussions; no ordinance or resolution to remove or relocate the crosswalks was introduced or adopted at the May 12 session.
