POD - "Knoxville's Famous Bike Arch" - Public art that I like

This archway entrance to a pedestrian bridge is made of old bicycles. 

It is located in a Park in the Hill Avenue lot on the corner of Volunteer Landing Lane and E. Hill Street. CLICK HERE to view the Roadside America post concerning this piece (here this information was gathered.

A sign immodestly calls it "Knoxville's Famous Bike Arch" and credits its creation to local artist Kelly Brown in 2012. This is public artwork, an arch to a pedestrian path that is made of dozens of old bikes and bike parts. The comments on the website (Roadside America) claims that this art is "less colorful now then when it was new in 2012."

Photo Credit: Alex Flinn, 4-21-2021

This photo was taken April 21, 2021 of "Knoxville's Famous Bike Arch". 

Art is personal. I like the recycled bottle sculpture on many different levels, including how it evoked some strong reactions by others (good art will do that). CLICK HERE to view the relevant prior posts on the Eco Art - formerly of village hall, formerly of the 168/82nd traffic circle and who knows where it lies now.

Is this any way to treat art? Palmetto Bay - the disposable society. Oh, the irony. And, by the way, when did Coral Reef Park get repurposed as a dump?

The irony. This piece of eco-art, made out of recycled materials, ends up in the trash.

You may have hated it, but this art piece speaks volumes as does the way it has been treated by the current Mayor and Village Council. They decided to trash it. Shame on them. 

[EDITOR'S UPDATE (9:25 PM)]: Palmetto Bay Council Member David Singer has indicated to me that he is not part of any decision to dump this art, that he is "...disgusted by the way it has been handled by the Village.")

By the way, the eco-art was donated.  It should be either properly stored, returned to the donor or given to someone who has an appreciation for this kind of art. Not everyone has the same taste in art.

The discovery of the unceremoniously trashed art has been a subject of several Facebook posts. The art piece had its critics and its fans, but the discussion here is how this current Mayor and Council treat things they no longer have use for - or appreciation for. This is not a very 'green' way to treat art, especially eco-art. 

Comments on the Facebook post thread have included (as of posting of this blog):

(JS) "I liked it. It was perfect for bottleneck circle......It's a Southern custom and it's suppose to ward evil things away"

(SB) "Terrible slap in the face to the artist, why not just burn an author’s book. I’m ashamed of how this village treated the artist."

(WiP) "Whether you loved it or hated it, this was someone’s art piece... terrible"

(MR) "This has to be a joke? We wouldn’t really handle someone’s hard work like that."

(JS -updated) "You know what? ......If no one wants it, I'll take it. I went to a ladies house in Coral Gables & she has a bottle tree at the entrance to her house. I think it I over 100 years old."

JS's comments provide a history and tradition of this type of art, - see a Pinterest Post (CLICK HERE)

Wouldn't it be great to place this in a garden, reminiscent of a bottle tree as mentioned in the classic children's book Because of Winn Dixie, by Florida author, Kate DiCamillo?
 The bottle tree is a Southern tradition. Also see:Wide Open Country, online, Build Your Own Bottle Tree Like the Southerners Do and Make Recycle Yard Decor, by Holly Skaggs

Proper care for donate art by government: A fair question is whether you would donate something you valued to this Village if you thought for even a moment that your donation would be 'dumped' - not displayed, but dumped - in a park akin to garbage waiting to be collected. 

Which also brings me to another question, why are we 'dumping' things at Coral Reef Park? It's a Park for goodness sake, not a dump.

Above - Trashed eco-art at Coral Reef Park - it makes a statement, don't you think?

The eco-art's brief placement at the SW 168th Street / 82nd Ave Traffic Circle

Online references / articles providing background on the art piece:

This eco-art was originally displayed out front of the Palmetto Bay Municipal Center from 2011 to October 2014, See New bronze sculpture installed at Village Hall, by: Gary Alan Ruse |October 29, 2014. It was then stored until it was placed TEMPORARILY at the traffic circle at SW 168th Street and 82nd Avenue, see the article of July 26, 2018, Traffic Circle at 168 Street / 82nd Av has a temporary AIPP piece installed under a permanent art piece is selected and installed.

In the meantime, let's hope this piece is neither stolen or broken as well as it does not cause injury to any child who may be attracted to playing in this area used to store unwanted items in the park.

Traffic Circle at 168 Street / 82nd Av has a temporary AIPP piece installed under a permanent art piece is selected and installed

Art work installed by Village Staff at the Traffic Circle on Thursday, July 26, 2018. This Art is installed only until the permanent piece goes through the AIPP process and is installed.  

CLICK HERE to view the official Palmetto Bay web page for the Art In Public Places Program (AIPP)

Can you say recycled, reused? Waste not. We have temporarily relocated an Eco Art piece formerly displayed at our Municipal Center to be enjoyed at the traffic circle at 168/82nd. Work is going on as I post. There was no disruption to traffic. I am pleased to see it back on public display for now. Thank you team Palmetto Bay.

Village staff takes charge - retrieves, restores and installs previoulsy paid for AIPP chandelier for village hall

Stored away/wasting away no longer.  Now available on public display.

Our Art In Public investment is now complete.  Palmetto Bay staff completed installation on Thursday, January 21, 2016. 

I am photographed with Councilman Schaffer admiring the new chandelier in Village Hall. And yes, that is me who smiled up at the chandelier and stating; "It really ties the room together."


This is not a new purchase. It was pulled from storage -- and installed where it was purchased and intended to hang.

CLICK HERE to view the village official Facebook photos regarding this chandelier (posted 1/22/16)

South Dade Matters is at it again – hard hitting questions that deserve answers from current elected officials regarding Palmetto Bay transparency. I nominate Howard Tendrich to work to resolve the issue.

I learned something new upon reading South Dade Matters (SDM).  I have never heard “who shot john” before, but I agree that it certainly is applicable as applied by SDM in PalmettoBay Transparency: Who Shot John, March 27, 2012. 

SDM states that the phrase “who shot john” has a meaning of a long, rambling explanation that never really answers a basic question. To some, it merely translates to an answer that is B.S.: “Tell me what happened last night and leave out all of the who shot john.”

SDM and the public deserve answers to the questions related to Palmetto Bay records and meetings:

    Who decides whether a particular meeting is televised either by streaming video or on Channel 77?

    Which records must the village administration post on the website?

I agree with SDM.  There is too much talking in circles from the Council Chambers.  We hear sound bites and platitudes, goals and claims of transparency – in other words, we hear the talk, but not receiving the deliverables.  It is far too hard to locate information on this new and improved web site that has taken far too long to finish.  For the record, the web site update has been going on prior to 2010.

The Village Manager and Clerk cannot operate in a vacuum.  Palmetto Bay is fortunate to have high quality management with our Charter Officers; the Manager, Clerk and Counsel.  But there is clearly no direction coming from the current Mayor and Vice Mayor on transparency.  It is time for a council member to step forward and fill the void with sound public policy from which management can operate the new technology now in place from the first council.

It is the responsibility of the Village Council, a policy board of directors, to be providing updates to the public at each and every regular monthly council meeting.  Agenda item 13, entitled “other business” and item 14 “Council Comments” sections are set aside for this purpose.  This is also why council members should not necessarily meeting in private with management.  That excludes the public.  The public should be in a position to know without having to ask the right questions. 

I nominate Council Member Howard Tendrich, who has been a champion of transparency, to put forward a well-defined and publicly stated council policy governing both the posting of records and on televising meetings. It was his pushing that got the monthly check register posted onto the new web site.  Everyone can thank Councilman Tendrich who is the reason those documents are posted.  The Crime Reports have been posted online for many years.

My opinion is that all records should be uploaded to the website.  It is time consuming and expensive for a village that I created in the mode of ‘government-lite’ to devote staff time to researching and providing documents, especially in this day of automation.

All meetings should be televised or streamed on the Internet.  I would like to see the behavior at a Charter Review Commission meeting or see how staff and the Art in Public Places Board consider spending the money as well as see the submitted proposals.  Besides, the more meetings the village televises, the less content at cost the village PR department has to create to satisfy the Comcast minimum material time requirement.  Isn’t it more important for residents to have the opportunity to view Palmetto Bay government in action than a slide show of Thalatta and past picnics?  It is all about maximizing the returns on costs.

Say it ain’t so Brian! Restricting the public to one public workshop to speak on our Village Charter? Where is the Public Participation? How can any elected official call significant public input abusive? What a shame. Let’s work to make sure that public participation is not a thing of the past in Palmetto Bay.

          In my opinion: Let the people speak. The present Charter Review Commissioners and the Mayor can’t seem to recognize the value of public participation.   Our entire council was elected under campaign slogans of inclusion and public participation, yet their post election actions on the council speaks louder than their campaign promises.  The vice mayor wants to restrict public input in the Charter Review Process to a single Public Workshop to be held sometime in the Fall - one chance for the public to speak, saying publicly that under these conditions, this “… is not a closed process.” The current Mayor publicly states that at a single meeting, “…the COURTESY was extended to the public and ABUSED.” Abused? How, by providing input?  The Charter Revision Commission should not only listen at each meeting to residents, but it should be actively involved in bringing the public to each meeting to PARTICIPATE.

            Did you know there was a Charter revision process going on?  If so, you are one of the informed ones.  Too few, however, appear to know it’s happening.  Fewer know how important our Charter is and those who do, and who want to participate, appear to be shut out.  Shut out that is, until the council decides what single day the public can speak.

            In all likelihood the Commission members will hear some great ideas or real concerns.  Set some time aside at each meeting to listen, it won’t hurt, I promise. Shutting out those who do want to participate will hurt the integrity of Palmetto Bay government.  It is far more difficult and certainly not worth the public scorn to prevent input or push off public participation by restricting it to a "public workshop" set for a date far into the future, far too late to have any quality or effect.  I strongly take issue with Vice Mayor Pariser’s statement that a single public workshop prevents the Charter Revise process from being a “closed process.”  To the contrary, a single night, date yet to be set, turns the “public night” into a meaningless cattle call where the public only gets to view or object to any work done by the Commission.  A single public workshop is a presentation, a show, but it certainly does not represent authentic public participation.  The real potential here is relegating residents to the back burner, saying their concerns are not valued.  You cannot pick and choose where and when public input is taken.

            Each meeting should be run like the May meeting where the Charter Review Commission Chair recognized founding Councilman Dr. Ed Feller and allowed him to present in great detail an item that he would like to see included in the charter.  I also attended this same May meeting and provided historical background input on several items in response to questions asked from the Charter Revision Commission members (only one topic though is cited in the incomplete minutes).

            Equally puzzling is why the Commission permitted a person not part of the Commission to sit with them at the Commission table providing comments as if he were a member. Simply being related to a Palmetto Bay Council member does not grant access to an appointed Commission. The oddity of it all continues when the comments by this person failed to appear in the minutes of the meeting. Add to that, the unsolicited comments of Mayor Stanczyk.  She is certainly not a member of the Charter Revision Commission, yet she trumped resident input by speaking when she should have been listening. By Stanczyk's own words, was she and the "extra" commission member "abusing the courtesy" of public input?

            Interestingly, the minutes reflect that Dr. Feller and I both spoke, but there is no mention of comments made by the spouse of the Council member, who challenged me on the physical boundary descriptions of Palmetto Bay as spelled out in the charter.  You can read the official minutes of the Charter Revision Commission for the April 25, 2011 meeting by CLICKING HERE. Mayor Shelley Stanczyk also spoke at this meeting, though she is certainly not a Charter Revision Commission Member. Did she abuse the “courtesy” or was it the council member’s spouse who sits at the commission table?

            In short, I am asking the council to stop a practice of a double standard in voicing opinions.  The Charter Review Commission should be going out of its way to involve the public, to garner public input, not limit it to a single “Public Workshop.”

            For these reasons, and due to the past public comments accepted, I was shocked to read what occurred at the June 23 commission meeting as contained in Grant Miller’s last column, “Charter Committee working for council not taxpayers”, published online and in the May 31 to June 13, 2011, edition of the Palmetto Bay News. (Click on the headline to view the actual article).