Castanet

MAPearce wrote:Tell me that chuck of old bridge painted red by the new bridge , that's called "art" ,

It "should" have cost very minimal since we already owned it, being a piece of "our" old
bridge and all.
Sandblast and Powdercoat, stick it into a blob of concrete. Done.
At least it has some meaning and a nod to the old bridge that served well for 50 odd years.

We, the local taxpayer sure got tag team raped by the City and Tourism Kelowna though
on their new digs on our lakefront.

Sandblast and Powdercoat, stick it into a blob of concrete. Done.

The place I work at does exactly that .. I'd bet we'd have done that for zilch.

How much did an "artist" charge again??

I can't remember . I'm sure it was a "common sense" price . chortle , snort , cough..

Putting a tourist center closer to where a lot of tourists are kinda makes sense

Sure Jon ... Sure ..

Those old fogies in that large RV that don't use digital technology BEFORE planning their vacation are sure gonna have fun steering that rig from Water St onto Queensway...

And I've noticed that you've now gone from "common" sense to "kinda makes sense" ....

Why ??

City hall should be concerned with the citizens who actually live here. Not the wine tour crowd. The real people who live here year round

Tourism is literally money being poured into the local economy. Net cash inflow, not sure why that's hard to understand.

Public art is a funny thing. Most municipalities and governments have a rule where art must be a set percentage of a project (I think ~1%), so we don't wind up with a bunch of drab concrete surroundings. This is a good thing.

Somehow these art budgets keep getting spent on things like our scrap sculpture, or Calgary's blue ring, which is more questionable, but there's no universal taste I guess haha.

Tourism is literally money being poured into the local economy. Net cash inflow, not sure why that's hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand...

What is hard to understand is the expectation of what local folks are expected to pay from their taxes , which should be paying for services for THEM , going to tourists ...

MAPearce wrote:

Tourism is literally money being poured into the local economy. Net cash inflow, not sure why that's hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand...

What is hard to understand is the expectation of what local folks are expected to pay from their taxes , which should be paying for services for THEM , going to tourists ...

and what services should those be..?

[/quote]
and what services should those be..?[/quote]

How about spending some money on cleaning up the crack head, smack head, and meth head problem downtown. That would be good for both locals who want to enjoy the city they pay taxes in. It would also be good for tourism not having junkies and criminals wandering around a block from city park.

WalterWhite wrote:I guess a sprinkler was deemed over-qualified for the landfill position. smh

There may be more to it than you think. This is composting and may involve monitoring plus understanding the process although it is only a guess on the duties on my part.

and what services should those be..?

Take your pick from any of the threads right here on Castanet forums.

You could start at snow plows.

MAPearce wrote:
You could start at snow plows.

Nope, too limited, 9-10 months a year it is all sitting dormant.