I happened across this story while listening to NPR, and found a pair of gigantic holes in the arguments that nobody mentioned. (Besides the whole concept that purple matting around your diploma constitutes art.)

Premise: The city requires new business construction in their area to make the purchase of public art 1% of the project cost.

I don't mind the sentiment (anything to keep people from not recognizing their daughter might be dancing), but I look at the execution and worry. The requirement that one get approval from the city for the artwork just looks like a great opportunity for abuse. Also I would think that the notion of putting a forced value on the artwork required to satisfy the ordinance is just plain fraught. I can immediately think of three ways to break the system, just based on how one assigns value to the artwork. (If I paint a can and call it a $5,000 sculpture, is it a $5,000 sculpture? If I hire the local kids to paint a mural, what's its value? If someone needs a $6,000 sculpture, am I permitted my to sell my $5,000 can, at $6,000, to him?)

If I had any talent in art, I'd be trying to hustle this plan, pronto. Actually, come to think of it, if I had any talent in hustling, I'd be trying this.