I attended the recent council meeting re SAM and I am wondering what the purpose was. The public was not permitted to speak so there wasn’t going to be any change made regarding SAM, so I am guessing it was to legitimise the decision.
The meeting also was at a time when most folk would be working so a trifle inconvenient for the public, even if they had known about it. I’m not against expanding our art museum, but why does it have to be all or nothing?
We could utilise an empty building or two in the central business district and renovate them in a much more economical way. They would be within close proximity to eateries and would give the central district a boost at the same time.
A bit like Heidi which spreads several buildings over a large expanse. Can such an extravagant proposal attract the numbers to a regional area off the beaten track?
I was recently in Wagga Wagga and went to their art gallery where six people were in attendance; myself and five colleagues.
Other people would have far better ideas than I do regarding SAM, so instead of losing the funding surely there can be compromise with something more affordable. Discussion on this topic is not about who wins the debate, but should be about compromise and progress.
I felt like a lone wolf in the wings at the meeting. A lone wolf that stands alone in public on this topic takes some bravado; glad it wasn’t me.
Maggie Turner-Miguel, Shepparton.
18°C