When most cities set their budgets, the focus is usually on filling potholes, keeping streets safe, paying public works employees, and maybe maintaining parks.The city of Carmel, however, spends in ways that most cities of its size do not. The difference is not random, making it all the more important when discussing local spending.

One of the clearest examples is Carmel’s roundabouts. Carmel now has over 150 roundabouts, and they are a major part of the city’s infrastructure. The city reports that roundabouts reduce major accidents and improve traffic flow in ways that traditional traffic signals do not, and can help pedestrians and bicyclists get through intersections much smoother.

Even so, Carmel’s commitment to roundabouts, and roundabout art, has not been without its own controversies. Local reports have raised questions about using redevelopment funds for sculptures in roundabouts, demonstrating that some residents expected those tax dollars to target more traditional redevelopment goals rather than decorative installations. 

A second notable difference in Carmel’s spending can be seen in cultural investments. The city owns and operates the Center for the Performing Arts, an arts facility with many venues that attracts thousands of visitors annually. According to an economic impact study, nonprofit arts and culture in Carmel generated $42.7 million in local economic activity in 2022, and supported nearly 1000 jobs. These figures should help justify public spending in this area, as it has shown to be an economic driver. 

Should a city of this population be choosing large performing arts facilities and public art over more traditional infrastructure spending? Is tying a budget to future tax growth riskier than allocating funds more conservatively?

Carmel’s fiscal choices can be seen as a reflection of broader ideas on what local governments should do. Rather than limiting spending to what is immediately necessary, the city often invests in projects meant to shape long-term growth and Carmel’s identity. Supporters of this spending argue that this approach has helped Carmel avoid the stagnation that is seen in many other suburbs by attracting businesses, tourism, and new residents. Seeing this, the spending is treated as a tool for planning the future, rather than just maintaining what is already there. 

Another question raised by Carmel’s spending is who benefits most from these investments. Although cultural facilities, public art, and downtown development enhance the city’s image, not all citizens are impacted by these equally. For some, smoother commutes and economic growth are the most beneficial. For others, less visible concerns like neighborhood infrastructure, affordability, or public services may be overshadowed by higher-profile projects. 

The city has chosen to invest in projects that shape how it is perceived by both residents and outsiders. This has produced a city that feels intentional and distinct, but not without its own concerns. As Carmel continues to grow, residents and officials alike should keep asking whether each investment aligns with the city’s needs as it evolves. Spending unusually can be a strength, but only if it continues to serve the people who live here, not just the image the city chooses to project. 

The views in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of the Acumen staff. Reach Drithi Raipet at [email protected].