A great post over at Ban Billboard Blight about the move to allow advertising in Los Angeles Public Parks.

Public/Private partnerships. At last week’s meeting of the L.A. City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, the term kept bobbing like a life preserver grasped for by city agencies at risk of being drowned in a violent tide of red ink. Councilman Bill Rosendahl, speaking of the Recreation and Parks department, said that in the absence of such partnerships “we’re not going to be able to sustain our parks, it’s as simple as that.” The other committee members who spoke–Paul Koretz, Greig Smith, and Chairman Bernard Parks–all nodded assent to Rosendahl’s declaration, apparently feeling no need to examine either its truth or its implications for the city’s future.

That’s too bad, because Rosendahl’s statement amounts to embrace of the idea that a large, modern, wealthy city will have to go hat in hand to corporate boardrooms in order to provide one of the most public and democratic–and many would say, essential–services to its citizens. In the picture painted by the silver tongue of Barry Sanders, the retired corporate lawyer and president of the Recreation and Parks Commission, this means some signs in the parks thanking Wells Fargo and Ralph’s and Taco Bell and whomever else rides to the rescue. “In my view, thanking a sponsor is not blight,” Sanders said. “A closed swimming pool on Monday is blight.”

…read the rest! Public/Private Partnerships: Will Commercialization Save Our City Parks? | Ban Billboard Blight.

Related posts:

1. L.A. Council Members Endorse Plan To Sell Advertising In City Parks
2. Why It Matters (from Ban Billboard Blight)
3. Oakland’s Ban on “Visual Blight” Upheld in Court

At yesterday’s meeting of the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who represents the Venice area, endorsed the kind of plan put forward last year by the non-profit L.A. Parks Foundation to raise money for city parks maintenance and operations by selling space to what was termed “corporate sponsors.” The Venice Beach part of the plan called for 200 signs on an 8-block stretch of the Boardwalk, a total sign area of almost 10,000 square feet, or the equivalent of 15 full-size billboards.

Read the rest: Bring ‘Em On: L.A. Council Members Endorse Plan To Sell Advertising In City Parks | Ban Billboard Blight.

Related posts:

1. Free Billboard Lobbyist Sanitizer Now Available for All Members of Council (from illegalsigns.ca)
2. Chicago Tribune: City losing war against sight blight
3. Advertising wont solve economic problems for NYC

Do you think the idea of California license plates than can show electronic ads is:

1.  A great idea, about time.

2.  Possibly questionable, but let’s study it.

3.  One of the top ten worst ideas of all time.

If you answered yes to #1, don’t bother reading further.  If you answered yes to #2, you’re in line with 25 California State Senators who voted to do just that, study the idea.  If you answered yes to #3, you can spend the rest of the day (or evening) pondering how woefully befuddled those legislators are to even spend a minute contemplating the idea.

The perpetrator-in-chief is Los Angeles area Senator Curren Price, who apparently sniffs some revenue for a state in perpetual budget crisis as well as perpetual paralysis between cutting spending and raising taxes. How much revenue?  Who knows?  In numerous news articles on the subject, Price is quoted as saying that he’s only proposing a study of the idea, and that the study will not  be funded by the state?  Huh? Who will fund it, then?  And how will that affect the objectivity of the study’s conclusions?

Here’s the legislative analysis of the proposal.  And below is one of the TV news pieces on the issue, with pros (gulp) and cons.

Related posts:

1. Consumer Reports: California considers ads on car license plates
2. Swine Flu Is the Hottest New Viral Marketing Idea (Gawker)
3. The Bright Idea Shade

Smart Plate, a San Francisco startup, is reportedly developing a digital license, though it does not have a model that is production ready.

A CNN story suggests that these plates could display paid advertising and public service announcements (PSAs). Further, the new plates could benefit the Amber Alert system, with notifications flashed on plates across the state to apprehend criminals. It’s conceivable, though, that some drivers may not agree or endorse an advertised product or PSA.

In a nation already overrun by advertising, and with distracted driving fatalities and injuries on the rise, it seems like a no-brainer to defeat such legislation that could only make our roads more dangerous.

And California, as opponents to the ads point out, already has some of the worst traffic jams in the country. It stands to reason that ads popping up on cars will only add to driver distraction.

I understand that desperate times call for desperate measures,  but it strikes me that this fanciful idea could create more problems than it solves.

What do you think? Post your thoughts and alternative suggestions in the comments below.

via Consumer Reports Cars Blog: Budget brainstorm: California considers ads on car license plates.

Related posts:

1. Sorry Amber, for Calif. Republicans you’re just not as important as this precious, precious money.
2. The Great 2008 Political Ads That Weren’t Political Ads
3. Ads on Barf Bags

The huge Under Armour logo recently added to the hillside of Federal Hill Park to welcome volleyball players has angered some residents, who say the advertisement detracts from the aesthetics of the historic neighborhood.

“It’;s hugely disrespectful,” said Paul W. Robinson, president of the Federal Hill Neighborhood Association. Since the logo was added Thursday night, Robinson said, he has received about 40 phones call and at least as many e-mails from residents upset by the advertisement. Had the company paid for the display, Robinson said, he might think differently about the black-and-white graphic with the words “Protect this house” underneath.

read the whole story: ‘Welcome ad’ not so welcome – baltimoresun.com.

(thanks to reader sam!)

Related posts:

1. DOOM Display Billboards « Urban Prankster
2. AMNY: Chase Caves on Illegal Sidewalk Ads
3. NYT: City Room Blog – Ad or Art? Chanel’s 2.55 vs. Zoning’s C5-3

1. “Bomb-proof” trash cans in London – Part of “bomb proofing” a trash can includes attaching television that plays ads on the side.  How many trash cans are exploding in London? What ever happened to David Yassky’s proposal to bring ads to Brooklyn’s trash cans?
2. This guy Dan Paluska has a nice brief post that ties together diamonds, advertising, and John Lennon all in in about 4 paragraphs.  Go see how he does it.
3. Yes Magazine wrote a handy “how-to guide” that includes some of our work.
4. Apparently in Canada, all advertising is true.
5. This ad says “Life is too short, get a divorce” (ouch!)  City has it removed.
6. I was happy that the NEA’s 50 million was part of the stimulus plan until I read about this stupid f-22 jet. Creative folks gotta stop putting up with being shafted.  This guy has a good take on it too.

Related posts:

1. Advertising wont solve economic problems for NYC
2. 4 things you should have done already
3. In the meantime, other things you can do with signs…

The L.A. Times is reporting Clear Channel has its eye on 674 state owned digital billboards on California Highways. The billboards were installed to alert drivers to road hazards and for Amber Alerts providing “urgent bulletins in the most serious child-abduction cases.”

But now the state is listening to Clear Channel.

Apparently California needs money. In the Governor’s budget it says, “chronic underinvestment has increased congestion and has resulted in California having some of the most distressed highway and road conditions in the United States.”

Of course, this is the neo-liberal fantasy:

1. the government under-funds infrastructure
2. infrastructure falls apart
3. Conservatives claim that government can’t be trusted and we need private industry and competition!
4. Conservatives then make private, exclusive deals with corporations so they can sweep in to the rescue/for the profit.

I can’t imagine this proposal going very far, but the whining about being broke and the publicity that follows may be intended to prepare voters for a comparatively less disgusting option.

As argued in the L.A. Times story, yes it’s an eyesore, yes it might be dangerous to drivers, yes it will train people pay less attention to a sign designed to help abducted children and tell them about emergencies – thereby nearly nullifying it. But more important that that, it’s public space and public property that belongs to us, not corporations.

But perhaps you’re more fiscally minded. This is another bad deal made by politicians with advertising and marketing companies. (Politicians who are most likely being lobbied by and receiving campaign donations from Clear Channel.) Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster) says the money will be used for highway repair and _potentially_ may be “tens of millions of dollars.” The California Transportation Commission’s annual budget is $28,466,000,000.

Another drop in the bucket. Sorry Amber.

Thanks for the tip from reader Sam.

Related posts:

1. Clear Channel Messed with LA Weekly and Lost!
2. New York City’s Struggle to Take Down Illegal Billboards
3. Clear Channel: Digital Billboards Rented, Not Hacked

Council Member David Yassky of Brooklyn is calling for the city to begin allowing advertising on municipal trash cans and suggested that such a move, which he estimated could bring $2.5 million in revenue, would help during difficult economic times. “We need to be as creative as we can about finding sources of revenues to ease the burden on taxpayers,” Mr. Yassky said yesterday. “We sold advertising on newsstands and bus shelters and other so-called street furniture. There’s just no reason not to extend that to trash cans.” Mr. Yassky’s push for trash can ads is the latest in a series of moves to expand public advertising, a lucrative source of income for the city. Council Member Melinda Katz introduced legislation last year that would allow advertising rights to be sold for construction sheds and scaffolding, many of which are currently covered with illegal posters. The bill, which has more than 30 co-sponsors, has not been brought to the floor for a vote.

Ad Sales Seen as Answer to City’s Economic Woes – September 15, 2008 – The New York Sun

2.5 million sure sounds like a lot of money to help with these difficult economic times, but let’s look at what the residents of this city get when Council Members like David Yassky and Melinda Yatz hand over public space and city property to corporations. NYC’s budget for 2009 is $59,100,000,000 and putting ads on trash cans would raise 2.5 million. Since those numbers are so large, I created this visualization:

It wasn’t easy to create a chart because the 2.5 million amount is so relatively small. Can you see the dot down at the bottom? At 0.004 percent of the current budget, it’s not a lot of money.

Additionally, the city can’t afford to shoot itself in the foot anymore after making billion dollar deals with CEMUSA to put ads all over town. They’ve since been tied up in courts with advertising bandits FUEL outdoor, who have placed illegal signs all over the city. When FUEL was called on it, they claimed the city was in the advertising business themselves (citing the CEMUSA deal) and therefor in a conflict of interest. As brilliant an argument as it is sleazy.

Regulating illegal activity to capitalize on it wont make the city more livable. Council members Yassky and Katz need to remember, people don’t want more ads. They want trees. Times Square is an interesting place to visit, but no one wants to live there. If the city wants to make money, enforce laws against illegal advertising, increase the fines, and make a more livable city at the same time.

If the city wants to make some real money, they could make billions if they’d expand their current plan and increase parking meter rates. Selling public space to advertisers is not the answer.

Related posts:

1. San Francisco to cut outdoor advertising?
2. Hey, NYC Vandal Task Force – Follow the Money!
3. NYT: Pay Phones Turned Mini-Billboards

Kevin Bartram, a sponsorship consultant hired by the bridge’s overseers, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, said any sponsorship would be tastefully done. “It will be appropriate and understated,” Mr. Bartram said. “But visible.”

Uh huh, I’d say that there is absolutely no advertisement which would be “appropriate” on the Golden Gate Bridge. Here’s the problem, the conservative anti-government types have starved the government of funds, and now our elected officials are at a loss about what to do. You see, people all agree with the cut-taxes mantra, but sure don’t want any services to be cut! Of course the fact that taxes go towards things that we all want and need such as infrastructure and bridges that don’t collapse isn’t explained when politicians talk about tax cuts. So now, the Golden Gate Bridge district is going hat in hand to big corporations, who have got very low corporate tax rates, so they can fund a small portion of the expensive bridge maintenance. Of course, that advertising money which is paid to the Golden Gate Bridge will be a tax-deductible advertising expense to those corporations!

The bridge district, with a 2007 operating budget of $150 million, has a projected deficit of $80 million in the next five years. A 2002 toll increase — it now costs $5 to enter San Francisco — was passed by the bridge’s board, and bus and ferry fares have also been steadily increasing. If approved, Mr. Bertram said, corporate sponsorships could bring in as much as $4 million a year by its third year.

So we sell off the visual beauty of one of our nation’s landmarks for a paltry sum, and the bridge still can’t make enough to cover expenses. I’ve got an idea, how about we start taking in enough money in taxes to fund our basic infrastructure. Agreed?

image courtesy of flickr/Chealion

Related posts:

1. NYT: Pay Phones Turned Mini-Billboards

There is a reason for their survival: Public telephones are one of the stranger cash cows in city finance. Not because of the coins that are fed into them, but rather because of the millions upon millions that companies are willing to pay to put ads on them.

The phone kiosks generate $62 million in advertising revenue annually — and last year the city got $13.7 million of the take, triple what it pulled in from calls.

Over all, the number of pay phones in New York is falling, as it is throughout the country. But in a phenomenon unique to New York, the phones are more valuable than ever, thanks to the intense competition among advertisers for attention in a city of eight million.

The rest of the article is just as interesting. Read the full story and see the multimedia feature at the NY Times site.

Also mentioned on Streetsblog.

Related posts:

1. Sáo Paulo Bans Outdoor Advertising in 2007
2. What advertisers pay to catch your wandering eye