I suggest a local vote on whether to use the money from the 1% tax on developers for the next ten years on public art or on the school system, which received less money this year as reported by PaloaltoOnline. Let the residents decide that rather than Council Members.

That's some irony right there. Thinking that reducing the quality or quantity of public art could help education in any way.

I'd be OK with the art tax if it wasn't always ugly, ugly, ugly! The picture for this article of the owls is one of the very few art pieces that are functional, fun and lovely to look at. Mostly we get blobs, wires, strange masses and ???

How about making all future art recognizable or useful - animal statues, fountains, even planting and maintaining trees and flowers (which are more beautiful than the strange "creations" that we usually get). Or make the developers use the 1% to make the buildings not so bland and ugly.

Art should be part of Palo Alto. Agreed. That said, I've had enough of the BLMers and would like to see art for all of us. The BLM street mural should have the terrorist and cop killer Joanne Chesimard part removed. It is divisive and especially, in these times, we don't need any more divisiveness.

I’m a big supporter of the Percent For Art Program, for example the Bruce Beasley granite arch at the new Mitchell Park Community Center and the proposed Peter Wegner suite of works at the new proposed police station, but advised against expanding the program 10 years later to the private sector. I’d prefer fewer new buildings period.
I’d like to see a major park, five to 20 acres, at the new Ventura village.

Has the council restored the $20,000 to broadcast council meetings on the radio? That would seem to be a far more important issue, since it involves public access to city governance.