Public art gets funded by tax dollars all the time, yet no one asks whether a mural or sculpture actually improves a city. I'm a project manager in Seattle, and I've seen $500,000 go to a giant steel arch that most locals openly hate. Is that really the best use of our money? I think street art and murals in neglected neighborhoods do more for community identity than high-priced installations downtown. But maybe I'm biased because I grew up in a city where a painted wall mattered more than any museum piece.