The naming rights and sponsorship controversy returned to city hall today with Executive Council approving policies that would allow for the sale of public spaces names, and program names, to corporations as well as policies to allow for other forms of aggressive advertising in public spaces.
The Toronto Public Space Initiative opposes the corporate naming of public spaces and the over commercialization of public space and is very concerned about the committee’s inappropriate decision today.
TPSI is also concerned about certain key points of misinformation raised at the meeting that may mislead the public, the media, and Councillors.
1. Suggestions that current policy and that the new policies forbid advertising in parks are incorrect. Sorauren Park, in the Roncesvalles area, now has corporate logos on its community bulletin board, and covering the back of its soccer bleachers facing the main park area. The TPSI Executive Director has also personally witnessed other park advertising, and visiting Councillors gave their own examples. The City case seems to rest on the notion that naming rights sales, and corporate logos, signage, promotions, merchandizing etc are not advertising since it arbitrarily defines them as ‘partnership recognition’ or ‘sponsorships’. Staff also refused to rule out the renaming of parks, and the budget chief has also previously refused to rule out renaming parks. TPSI suggests that if the city wants to rule out renaming and other advertising forms in parks then the appropriate method of doing so is to specify just that in its policy proposals rather than in conjecture.
2. Suggestions that these new forms of advertising in public spaces would be limited and ‘non-permanent’, and therefore more acceptable, are misleading. Naming rights contracts can range 5-20 years or more, and advertising in public space and programs, with signage and logos, can come with contracts lasting anywhere from months to many years, with new advertisements brought in on a rotating basis when contracts expire. We believe that the City is obscuring the major qualitative difference between a rare ‘short term’ one-day or one-week promotion and effectively long-term/quasi-permanent advertising, which is what these policies facilitate. The City appears to suggest anything non-infinite is temporary and limited, which is not helpful to public space users in our opinion or this debate.
3. It was suggested that billboards would not be allowed in parks when TPSI suggested that they would be allowed under the policies. We note that there is nothing in particular to prevent this and indeed the policies allow for ‘signage’ which is not defined to prevent any particular size or scope. We also note the recent installation of billboards on sidewalks – which the City does not define as billboards, instead calling them ‘Info Pillars’, despite being qualitatively and effectively smaller backlit billboards. In addition there is a PFR survey that asked respondents for their opinions on billboards in parks, among other ad forms. From a policy perspective, what we and many in the public would consider billboards cannot be ruled out unless the policy forbids them – as staff are given virtually unlimited discretion in approving any type of advertising in virtually any public space under these policies – although today the City made it clear they would not rename City Hall.
4. There is a serious lack of meaningful and transparent community consultation and notification requirements in these policies, in some cases weakening consultation requirements in some previous policies which could have acted as positive precedents. Indeed, there is nothing in the corporate naming rights policies requiring any consultation, let alone transparent and meaningful consultation of key stakeholders, nor is there in the sponsorship policies – where staff will be able to unilaterally bring advertising into public spaces. This will be elaborated upon more in our soon to be released policy analysis.
5. The notion that these policy proposals fill a major policy gap is questionable, since the city’s agencies, boards, and commissions each have their own naming rights and sponsorship policies or ways that they go about these matters. The city itself had existing policies on street naming and the naming of PFR recreation facilities, parks, sports fields, and community recreation centres which forbid corporate names. The new city-wide policy proposals appear to aim to weaken these standards as well as some of their community consultation standards.
Previously, street names were explicitly protected from having corporate names. The existing Street Naming Policy, adopted in August 2000, explicitly stated that “names for public streets that could be construed as advertising a particular business shall be avoided.” In May 2001, the city made an amendment which found that where street names were to be renamed after businesses, the costs must be paid by the business applicant. This was an exception however, because the renaming application that had triggered this amendment had been made before 2000 street naming policy. Moreover, the report still reemphasized that corporate names are to be discouraged.
Previously, parks were explicitly protected from having corporate names. The existing park naming policy was approved in November 25th 1998 at City Council. It was amended in April 2002 to include recreational facilities such as sports fields or community recreation centers. The policy states that “a direct relationship should exist between the place of residence/activity of an individual/group and the park/facility named” and that, well documented research gained through direct community input is required during the naming process. More importantly, it states that “names which may be interpreted as an advertisement…must not be used” This was acknowledged by the city’s Auditor General’s report which said “naming a park or facility after a corporate sponsor would be viewed as an advertisement and would not be allowed.
Again, our policy analysis will provide further details once released.
TPSI is also concerned that the Committee rejected a motion by Councillor Mihevic for city-wide public consultations, as well as a motion by Councillor Carroll for ban on children’s advertising that would protect children’s playgrounds and programs, and that it instead approved an amendment to consult BIAs to help identify properties that could have their names sold as well as to consult BIAs on guidelines for naming and advertising values. The inclusion of one stakeholder to the exclusion of all others in the city is anti-democratic, unfair, and unjust.
Noting his disappointment, TPSI Executive Director Jayme Turney said, “The advertising industry is aggressive and out of control in this city…. from illegal advertising to sidewalk billboards that are now shocking Torontonians… City Hall is enabling it. I get complaints almost every day. It’s unlike ever before. The calls for reform are growing louder and louder.”
We’ve been following the development of this policy since 2008. We’ve conducted research and presented a reasonable case. We’ve conducted nearly a dozen deputations, at City Hall, the TTC, TPLB, and even TDSB to make our case on this general issue. Through our networks we can reach at least 10,000 people directly. We have built up a network of experts and stakeholders interested in this matter. We’ve held two protest rallies. We’re earned media of all types and in-depth interviews. We have previously placed approximately 700 posters around the city on the issue. TPSI plans on putting the Public back into Public Space policy this November by consulting with key community stakeholders as the City refuses to conduct its democratic responsibility in this regard. We will also notify the public in ‘mushy middle’ wards and elsewhere with ‘art attacks’, postering, and canvassing, conducting lectures and events, as well as prized social media contests to raise awareness. We will also consult with Councillors and provide recommendations. Make no mistake, we are prepared and have planned for this.
TPSI is also releasing an in depth policy review in updated form that addresses issues and misinformation raised at Executive November 1st. It will provide a detailed analysis of the policies, raising concerns around the lack of meaningful public consultation, transparency, community standards, property values, financial considerations, and financial alternatives, among other issues as well as making numerous recommendations.
If these policies pass without significant improvement and democratic due dilligence we will continue to challenge their implementation at every opportunity in an ad hoc basis as well as by connecting this issue to a larger campaign, eventually aiming to make an election issue out of the emergent need for a City Wide Advertising Charter to allow for public, as well as expert, input into a principled and research-based policy that would inform all existing and future City advertising policies. In other words, we will never give up until we have democratic, informed, and principled policies. Anything less is illegitimate. We will also consider a boycott of the first corporation to buy naming rights under this illegitimate undemocratic policy.
Email your Councillor now to find out their position and offer yours.
Background Information/Committee Decision
Agenda Item 12.2: Sponsorships and Naming Rights: Partnership Policies to Promote and Recognize Contributions to the City
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2011.EX12.2
Examples of Previous and Existing Naming Policies and Restrictions
Toronto City Council. “Revision of the Naming and Renaming of Parks Policy to Include Recreation Facilities (All Wards)” April 16, 17 and 18, 2002. (Accessed August 26th 2011).
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2002/agendas/council/cc020416/edp3rpt/cl007.pdf
Jeffrey Griffiths, “Parks, Forestry and Recreation – Capital Program – The Backlog in Needed Repairs Continutes to Grow” Auditor General’s Office, City of Toronto. Janurary 23rd 2009. (Accessed August 25th 2011).
http://www.toronto.ca/audit/2009/audit_report_jan23.pdf
Toronto City Council, “Proposed Street Naming Policy.” August 1, 2, 3 and 4, 2000. (Accessed August 26th 2011).
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2000/agendas/council/cc/cc000801/wks15rpt/cl009.pdf
Toronto City Council, “Cost Recovery for Requests to Rename Streets Using a Corporate or Business Name” May 30, 31 and June 1, 2001. (Accessed August 27th 2011)
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2001/agendas/council/cc010530/wks7rpt/cl012.pdf
