Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter
They would have to make a very convincing argument not to stick with the 2% funding formula and I'm not certain they've done that yet.
|
Yeah, that's a good point. i guess i'm just thinking from the perspective
that the 2% did not have in mind $1 billion projects. the scale just seems
disproportionate .
But you're right urban. At least in the article, there really isn't any point made
about
why they need to cut that cost. It just states that they're under pressure
to cut costs.
But given a specific ultimatum.. wouldn't it be the right choice to cut from the
public art, rather than the airport itself?