I think that's critical in what you're saying. If the process is such that they start and they disappear, that's not what we want. We want sustainability. If you don't have sustainability, we're going to need a different model.
One of the things you mentioned was municipalities and the 1%. I know of a city of a million people where something has gone badly wrong, because they had the 1%. They would bring in art designed by foreign artists. Nobody knew what it was until it appeared. In the last election, they elected a council that's going to get rid of that 1%. They've not only upset their local residents, but the indigenous communities as well, because the art didn't connect to the people in the city, nor the indigenous communities. It insulted them. That city council is going to vote against that 1%.
That's a problem, when the arts committee sits isolated and doesn't have that connection to and support from their citizens. That's when things go wrong. You love to see that 1%, but when you get a disconnect, then we lose it, which is wrong.
With your project, I think I'm seeing the economic value of what you brought to that project, because you brought many different pieces. I saw in 2010 a $3.5-million federal grant, and then $366,000, so you've not identified any other funding source.