lightblueline is my first (and likely only) foray into art in public places. We are two months away from decorating the streets and already there are people drafting really interesting arguments about the consequences of doing this conceptual art piece. All public artists (I guess I'm in that group, now that the Angry Poodle has called me a "Crypto Christo") really fear is that nobody will notice their art. The next fear is that nobody will care. After that, it's all good.
I've seen letters from realtors speculating that decorating the street will lower property values for those properties lower than seven meters. Somebody should check the map... most of Santa Barbara is above seven meters. By the same logic most of Santa Barbara would actually GAIN value, and all because of 10 gallons of paint.
Just think, if the value of all the property above seven meters went up by just one percent, the City would make hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra property taxes on newly sold homes. Soon other coastal cities around the nation would catch on to this bonanza, forcing property values up across the country. Certainly the Federal Reserve Board would have no choice but to step in an raise interest rates in response to this unexpected economic surge.
Question of the week: When was the last time a piece of temporary public art affected property values anywhere in the world?
Answer? Let me know if this ever happened anywhere...
Again, we have the say that lightblueline is on the side of realtors and property owners along the coast. We are the ones working as hard as we can to keep the ocean down on the waterfront. It's the people in denial about climate change science who are the threat not just to property values but also to property on the coast.
And what about the argument that realtors will need to disclose the hazard from climate change simply because there is a line on the street? That would, of course, require that art achieve the power to create regulatory policy. That would be another first in the history of art in public places.
In terms of flooding, California civil code says that realtors are supposed to let people know if the property is within the current FEMA flood map zone. Last time I looked, FEMA flood maps did not include any information about future sea level vulnerability due to climate change. Will these in the future? I’m certain the FEMA is just waiting for a public art project to force it to change its policy. True, cities do have the power to also add local hazards into the requirements for real estate transactions. Again, that's not what the City did. They only authorized a temporary art project.
Sea level rise affects all the coastal cities in the world, and so, all the coastal cities in California. Any new regulation about reporting hazard vulnerability will certain happen at the state level or above. Right now there is a bill in the Senate (already passed the Assembly) to require sea-level rise vulnerability as a part of updating general plans. I guess someone must have heard that Santa Barbara was putting 10 gallons of paint on their streets.