What do we mean when we talk about arts funding? Imagine someone approaching, say, an oboist from the Seattle symphony, and asking, “Hey, Bruce Springsteen makes a fortune playing music, why can’t you?” One of your letter writers in the Dec. 18 Review made an assertion that sounded just like that.

I think there’s a more constructive way to think about arts funding. In major cities all across the United States we have examples of opera companies, symphony orchestras, theaters, art museums and libraries that are supported by a combination of public and private funding. We believe these things are worth having as a matter of civic pride and because they are valuable and relevant, even if they don’t have the box office popularity of the E Street Band.

In addition, we’re all getting tired of the argument that if you don’t use something, then your taxes shouldn’t pay for it. Our tax dollars support public transportation even if we never ride a bus. We pay for public education even if we don’t have children. We pay for libraries even if we don’t set foot in them. Ditto for national parks.

The same logic applies to arts programs. The majority of Americans feel that these publicly funded resources are good investments. We see communities having these resources enjoying a higher standard of living than those that don’t because such resources attract educated residents and companies that employ them. It’s an ecosystem that we on Bainbridge Island would be foolish to neglect.

Of course, there are times when money is tight due to declining tax revenues and other factors. Arts funding must be prioritized like everything else. But a lower priority doesn’t mean zero. Some amount of arts funding must always be in the budget because it represents what we value, and it’s a good investment.

Bill Branley

Bainbridge Island