BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Asm. Tom Ammiano On Glass Breaking BART Cop
Don't Dump Unwanted Stuff On City Sidewalks
Daisy Does the 49ers: Green Bay Tops SF
Help Children Have a Merry Xmas While Receiving a Lap Dance
Apparently Mayor Newsom left Proposition D sponsor David Addington a voicemail Thursday, officially enthusing his support for the controversial Proposition D, which would allow for 500 square foot electronic billboards to be plastered over every available surface on Market Street between 5th and 7th Streets.
A majority of the ad revenue generated by the sale of advertising space on the signs will go straight into the pockets of Mid-Market building owners, with a chunk of the proceeds going to help the downtrodden, Keane eyed children of the immediate neighborhood.
Newcomer Addington is reportedly "pleased" by the Mayor's last minute support (Election Day is five days away, boys and girls), though the Chronicle was quick to point out that no one gives two rat turds about Newsom's endorsements Newsom "has notoriously short coattails and has trouble seeing his picks gain favor among voters."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
C.W. Nevius, by supporting this measure, proved exactly what's wrong with it:
* There is a long-standing and deep-rooted problem
* Local businesses have an unrelated money-making scheme
* Represent the scheme as a solution to the problem
* Respond to critics by snarling "have you got a better idea?"
* Profit
we need more neon on our buildings, asia-style
Jesus. This guy can't do a single thing these days that isn't awful.
It really bothers me that the main opposition to this prop is "the money is going to the wrong people", not "it would be fucking awful for there to be obnoxious bright billboards on market".
This scheme only creates revenue for building owners. It will do nothing to alleviate blight.
Don't we have more imagination here in SF? Our leaders say Market should be our Champs Elysee, so lets make it one. Redevelop mid-Market with mixed use housing retail to provide mid income people a place to live (near jobs in the financial district) and retail on street level to attract the tourists from Powell St. Those sidewalks are wide enough to have cafes and street vendors which will attract the right kind of people.
Here's my image of what mid-Market should be:
http://shandymae.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/champs-elysee-from-arc.jpg
The video component of the League's SmartVoter website is called SF Votes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzwEgAIjcIw
I don't have a good reason to vote no. What do I care if there are some shiny lights for a couple of blocks? Big deal.
My rule of thumb on propositions is that I have to have a pretty bloody compelling reason to vote *yes*, otherwise I vote no.
That's generally my rule, too.
But in this case, it's not a tax/bond/limit/curfew or anything that will negatively impact anyone. Just a bunch of business looking for permission to do something to their buildings that they think might revitalize the area. (for the record: I don't buy any of these dumb ads with smiling happy children in them. How trite).
Sure, said revitalization may not work but if it doesn't it's not like this is some harmful prop that we'll regret for decades.
well it's a waste of electricity for one thing. does the world really need any more advertising?
I don't know about you, but I think that one obnoxious billboard in Oakland that you can see from the bridge is so damn bright that if I had a car, I'd have a problem being able to see the road at night. I think they're dangerous from a safety perspective. If it were just about regular billboards, I'd vote yes, but it's not.
I'm voting yes because I believe the property owners should have some way to make some money from their businesses located there. The area's a shithole, the city's not serious about cleaning up the area and locking up the people who make the area dangerous to walk through. I can't imagine how hard it is to attract commercial tenants to the area.
I think we owe the business and property owners something for investing in such a bad neighborhood.
And by the way sivart13, who are you to decide what's a waste of electricity? If I watch a tv show you don't like, does that mean I shouldn't be able to watch it because it's "a waste of electricity"?
I bet these billboards take up a hell of a lot more energy than your TV. Watch whatever show you want.
and if the business are paying their own light bill, why do you care?
Opposition to this proposition is just NIMBYism pure and simple. I have never seen a city more reluctant to change anything than SF.
This is private property - the basic idea that SF feels it can so severely restrict use of personal property based on some abstract sense of aesthetics is complete BS.
How many times have plans been drawn up for mid market only to be dragged down my NIMBY minutiae - the basic goal is status quo.
If your urban aesthetic is so severely compromised by 3 blocks of buildings with neon signs, then maybe you are better suited to a gated community.
Sometimes I really miss living in a true urban environment rather than the twee party that is San Francisco.
By making this issue into a proposition,x it is asking me to take time to think about it and then take the time to go and vote on it. In order for me to vote "yes" on something, to take definite action to change something, it needs to be something that will be beneficial to either me and/or my community. I have yet to see any benefit from this proposition other than making money for and empowering the advertising industry, which, in my opinion already has far too much influence, not to mention money, in this country as it is.
I see no viable reason to pass this proposition, therefore my recommendation and vote is "NO" ON D
The Proposition D proposal is a total scam.
Despite assertions by the proponents of Proposition D, billboards are not a panacea for the woes that afflict the mid-Market area. It’s insulting to suggest that.
Putting in electronic signs does not revitalize blighted areas. You can see this in Times Square, which had dozens of neon signs during the 1970s when it was an urban cesspool. All over San Francisco, there are areas that were once run-down and have since been revitalized. Not one of them was revitalized by allowing the installation of giant neon signs.
This proposal did not emerge from the local community, which is merely being used as a fig leaf by property owners making a grab for billboard cash. Prop D states that “up to 5%” of billboard space will go to advertise the arts – which means 0% in reality. The 20-40% of revenues supposedly slated for local non-profits would be under the control of the same property owners who would get the profits from the billboards, and these monies could be spent on anything they choose.
Prop D claims that all the billboards it would allow would be under strict community control. But they would be under the control of a “non-profit” group under the control of local property owners – the same people who stand to benefit from allowing the biggest and brightest billboards.
I never like these kinds of measures because the people for it promise a Golden Age of Prosperity and puppies, kittens and rainbows and so on, and the people against it say that we'll all burn in Hell if we pass it.
I really dont' know who would be advertising on fancy billboards in that part of town - ad spending is down, overall, and let's face it how many crack producers buy billboard space?
If it passes, fine. If some money trickles down and helps clean some pee up, hooray. If it does not, they'll put it on the ballot again. This idea has been kicked around for like, ever so I can't imagine it'll vanish because pissy liberals say no.
I agree that the advertising measures saying "It will help the babies!" is ridiculous, and I don't quite buy that it will add so much money to arts programs. But I think the worst-case scenario if this bill passes is just that no *additional* money will be added to arts programs.
That's not a bad downside.
(Oh, and some NIYBY--that's Not in Your Backyard--types will get their feelings hurt. But I don't consider that a downside.)