Too much public art is selected for that very reason. The only controversial thing about most of it is why did it cost so much. I'm not a fan of controversy, but if avoiding it is your only goal, then the only solution is to do nothing.
My question remains; Is it Art? Should Public art money be used for what is basically a sign? The original artist dropped out of the project, so they got a new artist, but the sign remained the same... doesn't that indicate that the idea pre-existed the artist? If they already had the idea, why did they need an artist? Why not a sign company? They need an artist so they can call it "Art" and access the public art funds.
Artwork spelling out ‘Fort Worth’ along highway hits another pothole
In my opinion this is more of an industrial design than an art piece. Directing Public Art funds to projects like signs, park benches, trash cans, bike racks, just seems like a way to use art money for what used to be considered infrastructure.
You should read Jerry Flemmon's "Amon". There has never been anyone else quite like him. He drove a stagecoach through Manhattan. He leaped up on a table in an exclusive New York restaurant, fired his colt 45's in the air (blanks, hopefully) and shouted "Hooray for Fort Worth and West Texas".
He personally wrote the name in the member register of every member of the Fort Worth Club. He presented a cowboy hat in his own particular block, the 'Shady Oaks" to every distinguished personage who ever visited Fort Worth. The stories go on and on.
Urban multi-story hydroponic farms with artificial lighting are becoming the food suppliers of choice for the future (see article). Less susceptible to weather variations, insects, or reliant on pesticides. The T&P warehouse is centrally located on a rail line and a main street, is almost indestructible, and though historically significant, is not easily retrofitted to other obvious uses.