City
New Proposed Tax Could Turn Billboards into Art
Photo: "Place your message here!" by blogTO Flickr pooler Gabi~
Now here's a tax that makes sense: The Beautiful City Billboard Fee, a tax that could raise at least six million dollars annually by charging a fee to third-party outdoor advertisers on city billboards. If approved, the revenue raised would be directed through the Toronto Arts Council and used to support a slew of public art initiates.
The proposal launched by the BCBF Alliance may be an ambitious one, but the logic behind it is quite simple: billboard advertisers should be held accountable to the community for their impact on public space. With the rise of illegal billboards in Toronto (over 500 have been confirmed by anti-billboard front man, Rami Tabello, of illegalsigns.ca), the need for serious action is upon us.
The Beautiful City Alliance is asking those who believe in the regulation of city billboards to sign and circulate the BCBF petition. Every signature counts!
Discussion
33 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
and besides, maybe this way they'll finally start collecting some coin on all those illegal billboards. if they're going to be there, at least they'll be helping to support our city instead of just making it an increasingly ugly place to live.
The only reasons for a targeted billboard tax are: (1) the preceived "harm" caused by billboard proliferation; and (2) the windfall that it would create to the group targeted to receive the funds. With regards to (1), it is dealt with under the alternate plan I have sketched. With regard to (2), one could surmise that their are higher priorities for city spending than the funding of public art projects, which it appears this is directed at.
I know it is infinitely tempting, but dreaming up new taxes to attack businesses/practices you don't like is horrible tax policy (your political opponents might suggest taxes on used clothing and angular haircuts).
If there is a perceived "harm" with billboard advertising (I have heard the arguments and think they are all wanting), city council is entirely within its power to ban them - and if there was harm, you would think that would be the proper response (bonuses: would also save the hassle and substantial cost of enforcing arcane by-laws and put half the activists in this city on to more meaningful and important work). The alternative here is parasitic - it allows what have been deemed harmful to continue to exist, as long as it generates revenue for things which are deemed beneficial. Thats kind of dumb.
Further, the city should set limits on the total number of billboards allowed in an area, driving up their value and in turn driving up how much tax they get in return.
You can read more about this here: http://www.them.ca/Content.asp?id=22
Also, for the person who needed some harm proven, check this out:
Rachel Shields, ?By 12, girls have seen 77,500 ads. And does it make them happy?? The Independent, October 7th 2007.
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3036006.ece
(?surveyed 2,000 girls in the UK and the US aged between 10 and 14?77 per cent of them reported feeling fat, ugly and depressed when faced with pictures of beautiful models and celebrities. More than half of these adolescents then described themselves in negative terms, using words
such as "disgusting" and "ugly")
Thirdly, towards the aim of better regulation, using an arms length body (the Toronto Arts Council) to distribute any tax revenue is essential. Collection and benefit (artistic, community or political) must be clearly separated to prevent any chance of sign incentives developing. Accordingly, ensure artistic excellence and freedom of expression.
"The alternative here is parasitic - it allows what have been deemed harmful to continue to exist, as long as it generates revenue for things which are deemed beneficial. Thats kind of dumb."
Sorry -- thinks only work that way in some ideal universe with a complete void of interests at play. How do you explain alcohol, tobacco, gas and now increased fees on SUVs?
"The alternative here is parasitic - it allows what have been deemed harmful to continue to exist, as long as it generates revenue for things which are deemed beneficial. Thats kind of dumb."
Sorry -- thinks only work that way in some ideal universe with a complete void of interests at play. How do you explain alcohol, tobacco, gas and now increased fees on SUVs?
Gas is taxed to ration its use. It is not eradicated because it is an essential commodity.
SUVs aren't taxed any differently than any other automobile.
What liberty interest is infringed by the banning of billboards? What benefit is protected by rationing use rather than eliminating them?
if the judgment is that billboards are harmful and provide no benefit, which appears to be the basis of your campaign, why not eradicate them completely? Is the judgment being made that at a certain de minimus level billboards are not harmful? What is that level? How are you sure that the tax you have targeted will lead to eradication of billboards to that level? Or is it you haven't considered these issues because all you have been thinking about is how you would spend the revenue?
Did your Environics poll ask whether taxpayers would prefer their money being spent on non-conforming billboard enforcement or snow removal? TTC transit expansion? bike lanes? economic development initiatives to reverse the exodus to the 905? Cause if it didn't it is useless from a policy-making perspective. If you asked taxpayers if they support the reduction of their property tax rates to zero, im pretty sure you'd also get a fairly positive response, but that doesn't make it a good policy option given scarce tax dollars.
Re: the independent article, if this is your basis then the law should be directed at removing ads which depict women in a way that is harmful to these girls. It doesn't at all support the reduction of other advertising which is not harmful. Or maybe it supports the erecting of additional billboards that depict non-harmful girl images. Is this your point?
Third, the regulation point you make could be made for any tax. If you let the collector spend it, the collector comes to rely on it. I ask again why this money should be going to fund arts instead of other city priorities? And why should an arms-length arts agency be funded by taxes levied, administered and collected on the public purse? Shouldnt it do its own fundraising?
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/21/canadas-new-budget-will-add-4-000-tax-to-suvs/
I'd prefer you'd respond to my numerous questions than feign insult.
Re: Environics - No they are valid because within that sample a large, close to a majority responded "strongly" rather than "somewhat."
Re: Harm -- harm can also be found in that the majority do not like them / are annoyed by them and feel that they have a negative effect on the look and feel of the city. (See earlier pollara poll on at http://bcbf.them.ca, under downloads). At the end of the day, we are forced to consume this kind of advertising with no direct, or very little reciprocation.
Re: Why Arts -- There are tons of reasons to fund public art. For example: A Council for Business and the Arts study released in August 2006 stated that for every dollar of public arts funding in a regional economy, eight dollars are generated.
http://www.businessforarts.org/pdf/McKinsey_Government_Aug_2006.pdf
Should public health be funded through cigarette and alcohol tax?
Should public art be funded through public blight..er.. billboards?
When there is an interest in proliferating a negative, be it cigarettes, fossil fuel consumption, or billboards... there is an economic disincentive to minimize that proliferation. Who collects it and how it is distributed is irrelevant.
Collection and distribution is not irrelevant. Freedom of expression requires lots of structural elements to be maintained. Especially within the context of a strong lobby. Separation of benefit and collection / regulation in this case is also esential to ensure that no new incentives for billboards develop.
One of the other steps that the TAC has agreed to is to distribute the revenue across all wards based on economic need -- rather than number of billboards in each ward.
I don't think you understand my point. Policy making is a choice, and allocation of scarce dollars to meet a variety of things voters believe "strongly" or "somewhat". The study doesn't address the question of priority. I could believe something strongly and still think its a poor use of my tax dollars.
(2) Your second harm argument is absolute codswallop. You are not forced to consume anything. If I am wrong, and they are annoying/blight, why not ban them entirely? What is the justification of allowing something that is deemed harmful to persist if there is no benefit? You have avoided this question in all of your answers.
(3) Again, you answer in a vaccuum. No doubt funding of the arts is valuable. Why should the monies here be allocated to arts and not, say, homeless shelters? You have to address these issues if your survey is going to be even remotely persuasive.
Again, you are not addressing my questions.
Luckily the policy and decision makers do see the wider and long-term value of enhancing and protecting public spaces in Toronto (tourist draw, regional economic health, making Toronto look better, international competitiveness, etc.) It has already been recommended by the Deputy City Manager and Finance Dept. as well as the Executive Committee for review. Just because there are hard issues that clearly need dealing with, there is no reason why the city can't work on multiple different things.
I think you misunderstood (2). I mean you don't have a choice in seeing commercial messages of this kind. The vast majority of other advertising venues provide substantial content.
List of questions you haven't answered:
(1) What liberty interest is infringed by the banning of billboards?
(2) What benefit is protected by rationing use rather than eliminating them?
(3)if the judgment is that billboards are harmful and provide no benefit, which appears to be the basis of your campaign, why not eradicate them completely?
(4) Is the judgment being made that at a certain de minimus level billboards are not harmful?
(5) What is that level?
(6) How are you sure that the tax you have targeted will lead to eradication of billboards to that level?
(7) Or is it you haven't considered these issues because all you have been thinking about is how you would spend the revenue?
(8) Did your Environics poll ask whether taxpayers would prefer their money being spent on non-conforming billboard enforcement or snow removal?
(9) TTC transit expansion?
(10) bike lanes?
(11) economic development initiatives to reverse the exodus to the 905?
(12) Re: the independent article, if this is your basis then the law should be directed at removing ads which depict women in a way that is harmful to these girls. It doesn't at all support the reduction of other advertising which is not harmful. Or maybe it supports the erecting of additional billboards that depict non-harmful girl images. Is this your point?
(13) I ask again why this money should be going to fund arts instead of other city priorities?
(14) And why should an arms-length arts agency be funded by taxes levied, administered and collected on the public purse?
(15) Shouldnt it do its own fundraising?
New questions:
(1) "A Council for Business and the Arts study released in August 2006 stated that for every dollar of public arts funding in a regional economy, eight dollars are generated." Why wouldn't we just spend all tax dollars on the public arts then, since it promises a quite incredible rate of return?
(2) "Luckily the policy and decision makers do see the wider and long-term value of enhancing and protecting public spaces in Toronto (tourist draw, regional economic health, making Toronto look better, international competitiveness, etc.)". This is a non-sequitur. If billboards are blight, wouldn't tourist draw, regional economic health, appearance, "international competitiveness" (whatever is meant by that) be improved by an outright ban? If each billboard removed enhances this, isn't the maximum benefit to be achieved by an outright ban?
(3) Just because there are hard issues that clearly need dealing with, there is no reason why the city can't work on multiple different things. What are the hard issues?
Re: "I think you misunderstood (2). I mean you don't have a choice in seeing commercial messages of this kind. The vast majority of other advertising venues provide substantial content." Didn't misunderstand, I think the argument is wafer thin. Billboard messages don't infiltrate my conciousness against my will. I freely submit to them. I choose to read/absorb/look at them, or not to. I have no idea what you mean by "other advertising venues provide substantial content".
(A1) Sorry I answered this already. It would be impossible to ban them in Toronto. The lobby is too strong and in some cities, billboard taxes have been challenged on the basis that they restrict freedom of expression. The BCBF is unique in nullifying this argument because it will expand the freedom to express in a much wider sense: the TAC has agreed to put a funding priority on youth art and marginalized communities. Access to visual communication in public spaces needs to reflect the creativity and multiplicity that exists in Toronto -- less of this and we risk alienating our population from their environment. Diversifying access to expression in public spaces using public art will make Toronto a fairer, more beautiful and reflective city.
We don?t support censorship, although there are many billboard ads which are tasteless or have been proven to be harmful to mental health, we believe that it is the right of organizations to represent themselves in this way. Furthermore, it must be identified that there is no danger to the amount of corporate expression in western society. However, there is gross danger in effectively / systemically limiting expression in public spaces to only corporate expression.
(Q2) What benefit is protected by rationing use rather than eliminating them?
(A2) Currently, there is an over-saturation of billboards to the point that it damages the industry as a whole and provides lesser and lesser returns for their clients due to clutter (i.e. every sign that goes up, detracts impact from those around it.)
(Q3)if the judgment is that billboards are harmful and provide no benefit, which appears to be the basis of your campaign, why not eradicate them completely?
(A3) You are being really repetitive and boring me. See A1.
(Q4) Is the judgment being made that at a certain de minimus level billboards are not harmful? What is that level? How are you sure that the tax you have targeted will lead to eradication of billboards to that level?
(A4,5,6) Yes, apparently the majority want fewer. The consultants report (Hemson) commissioned by the city suggests a 3% reduction in the number of billboards (elasticity due to avoidance of use and removal of less profitable locations) at half the tax level the BCBF is requesting.
(Q7) Or is it you haven't considered these issues because all you have been thinking about is how you would spend the revenue?
(A7) I have not given much thought to spending it because it is not going to go to me. I have thought about some of the funding structures and tracking systems though.
(Q8) Did your Environics poll ask whether taxpayers would prefer their money being spent on non-conforming billboard enforcement or snow removal?
(9) TTC transit expansion?
(10) bike lanes?
(11) economic development initiatives to reverse the exodus to the 905?
(A8,9,10) I already answered this question, twice now. Of course it did not ask that -- few surveys do, but a large percentage felt 'strongly' rather than 'somewhat.' If I was to rate the priority of those I would say 1.TTC,2.Bike Lanes and include our initiative under creating economic development. The city is more than capable of doing multiple things. Your argument might might only make sense if there was only one person working at city hall. :P
(Q12) Re: the independent article, if this is your basis then the law should be directed at removing ads which depict women in a way that is harmful to these girls. It doesn't at all support the reduction of other advertising which is not harmful. Or maybe it supports the erecting of additional billboards that depict non-harmful girl images. Is this your point?
(A12) See A1 + I never said that was the only reason -- but it is a good reason. The industry can be quite responsive.
(Q13) I ask again why this money should be going to fund arts instead of other city priorities?
(A13) Because it is a dedicated tax: i.e. to benefit to the aesthetics of the city funded by an annoyance / blight.
(Q14) And why should an arms-length arts agency be funded by taxes levied, administered and collected on the public purse? Shouldnt it do its own fundraising?
(A14) No because they obviously provide a public good. Even some of the most right-wing people see that the market leaves much to be desired in creating excellence within artistic practice.
(Q15) "A Council for Business and the Arts study released in August 2006 stated that for every dollar of public arts funding in a regional economy, eight dollars are generated." Why wouldn't we just spend all tax dollars on the public arts then, since it promises a quite incredible rate of return?
(A15) Boring and condescending. Try a different question.
(Q16) "Luckily the policy and decision makers do see the wider and long-term value of enhancing and protecting public spaces in Toronto (tourist draw, regional economic health, making Toronto look better, international competitiveness, etc.)". This is a non-sequitur. If billboards are blight, wouldn't tourist draw, regional economic health, appearance, "international competitiveness" (whatever is meant by that) be improved by an outright ban? If each billboard removed enhances this, isn't the maximum benefit to be achieved by an outright ban?
(A16) Please see (A1)
(Q17) Just because there are hard issues that clearly need dealing with, there is no reason why the city can't work on multiple different things. What are the hard issues?
(A17) Please see (A8,9,10)
Re: "I freely submit to them. I choose to read/absorb/look at them, or not to. I have no idea what you mean by "other advertising venues provide substantial content".
Not really, a lot of marketing lead research has found that repetitive advertising in the public realm is subconsciously absorbed. (Leading to increased familiarity at the point of sale.) Most of the time people's brains try to block it out like you would the smell when living next to a hog farm.
Re: "I have no idea what you mean by "other advertising venues provide substantial content".
-- Like TV, newpapers or perhaps magazines. They all have content besides ads.
So from your (evasive) answers, I summarize: (1) the ultimate benefit would be achieved by banning billboards, but that is not politically feasible (I think the Charter argument on freedom of expression grounds is weak, for what its worth); (2) the benefit achieved is to the billboard industry itself by reducing billboard clutter (really?!? that is your answer!?!); (3) you have no idea what sort of priority taxpayers put on such a measure because you didn't ask, but you are going to wave around pointless poll results anyway; (4) no "optimality" analysis either on the amount of the tax, the amount chosen was chosen to generate the "right" amount of revenue; (5) the money should support arts because it is a dedicated tax (all you have done is begged the question); and (6) the money shouldn't be administered by the city, instead some interest group, because the interest group is dedicated to the public good (quite incredible claim that interest groups, not government, are devoted to the public good).
As you might expect, I think this is fairly shoddy and unconvincing. Its just the same old corporate advertising-baiting dressed up with an Environics poll which doesn't say what you want it to say, sprinkled with the specious "stand to risk being alienated from our environment" and "danger of corporate expression dominating public spaces" no logo rehash gobbledegook that has apparently distracted a generation of activists from real progressive goals. Good luck with it.
(A/Q3) Are you saying that we should not enforce the bylaws? That sounds like a much more defensible position.
(Q5) the money should support arts because it is a dedicated tax (all you have done is begged the question);
(A5) Nope. I specified it is a dedicated tax. One harms the visual environment (according to the majority, and one benefits) It makes sense because it seeks to balance out some of the harm at the cost of the other.
(Q6) the money shouldn't be administered by the city, instead some interest group, because the interest group is dedicated to the public good (quite incredible claim that interest groups, not government, are devoted to the public good).
(A6) I would not call the TAC an interest group. That typology is completely off. (However, there are lots of different kinds of 'interest groups' and some do work for the public good -- hell by having a diversity of groups participating in policy formation, the quality of dialogue goes up in general -- that can be considered a public good in itself.)
Re: "As you might expect, I think this is fairly shoddy and unconvincing."
-- Honestly don't care. Your opinions are so out on the idealistic-authoritarian, right-wing fringe they pose no credible threat, and if anyone does start to listen to you, they you will probably just insult, personally attack or try and overwhelm them with written diarrhea within the first five minutes and further marginalize yourself. You have not really shown any desire in engaging in meaningful dialogue or exchange of information but rather ham-fisted, uncharitable wishy-wash.
p.s. (4) no "optimality" analysis either on the amount of the tax.
No, as I already said, this has been done by the Hemson consultants. We can only propose a level. This kind of thing is best left to the experts.
Re:"no logo rehash gobbledegook that has apparently distracted a generation of activists from real progressive goals."
-- Actually, not sure if that is a fair characterization for this project. Two of the strongest critics of that movement have been quite supportive of this idea. If you are interested the book is titled: "the Rebel Sell: Why Culture Can't Be Jammed" http://www.rebelsell.com/
as for tone, i have been polite throughout. perhaps you are getting flustered because I don't agree with your little arts group cash grab? It is hard to have a "meaningful dialogue", as you submit, when your objective is to avoid the nub of the issues raised with cut-and paste website propoganda and general obfuscation.
as I said, good luck with it.
Ahem: x_the_x "Thanks, I was hoping someone would be dense enough to compare..," "...Thats kind of dumb"... "absolute codswallop"..."I think this is fairly shoddy..."
You avoided my last question. Here is another one: what is a 'real progressive goal to you?
I have honestly tried to answer all of your questions, sometimes repeatedly. A few times I cut and pasted, sorry if you did not like that. My current opinion is not that I did not answer them but your ideology and debate-team style of conversation prevents you from understanding or seeing any validy within them. If there is something you would me to expand on I am more than willing.
Here is what he wants people to send by email:
You could help me a lot to spread my proposal to Mary ? it is important that it is distributed as widely as possible so that it eventually reaches Mary. If you would like to support my proposal to Mary, please send the following text by email to a lot of people :-)
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------
WHEN YOU RECEIVE THIS, PLEASE HELP TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!
For a long time I have tried to find a special way to propose marriage to my girlfriend Mary, whom I know for five years now. I wanted it very special, romantic and memorable, something our grandchildren would still remember.
And here is my idea: I will send out the proposal to Mary to 50 complete strangers, people I don't know - hoping, that they will forward my proposal to as many people as possible, which in turn forward it etc. And some day, I hope, it will reach Mary, after it has travelled a very long way. I know, it will take a long time and I am quite nervous?
From the poem MY Mary will know immediately that the proposal is for her.
I have created a homepage ( http://www.proposal-to-mary.com ) where you can find the current status of my quest. You can use the homepage to check if the proposal has already reached Mary (in that case it is not necessary anymore to forward the mail).
Once the proposal has reached Mary, I will put a note on these pages. Also I will publish there how many people have read the proposal so that everybody can see how far it has spread and that it is getting closer to Mary.
And of course you will find there what I am waiting for most: Mary's answer! I can't tell you, how nervous I am? Will she accept my proposal? Will she like the unusual way how she got it, through the hands of thousands of messengers all over the world?
Please cross your fingers for me! And please - help me by sending the mail to as many people as possible, to help it spread, so that it eventually reaches Mary.
And here is my proposal:
Mary, please forgive me, as you know English is not my native language. And I am not a poet. But I mean it from my heart.
My angel,
Five years ago, I will always remember the day When fate made us meet, blissful Alaskan moments in May Earth spun around us and a journey began Love, warmth, happiness, enough the years to span.
The longer it lasts the more grows our bond And with 80 still - of you I will be fond Whatever happens, I will stay at your side Through good and bad, together let us stride
No second with you was ever wasted
You are the sweetest I have ever tasted
We have spent so many years - why not a life?
Mary, will you marry me - and become my wife?
Mary, if you have received that and have recognized me, then give me a sign so that I can continue with the romantic part of my proposal?
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------