Screwing the Commons and All Things Civic

[peristaltor]

Just caught a piece of rage-inducing news: a Washington State House bill proposing selling naming rights to elements of public transportation to raise money. As he almost always does, I think Goldy says it best:

Personally, I'm opposed to selling the naming rights on state bridges and highways because I think it cheapens the commons and

Comments

[notmrgarrison]

I thought naming bowl games and stadiums after corporations was bad enough. With public items, hopefully you can outlaw it. I wish you luck.

[mahnmut]

Why stop there, let's extend the naming rights and start naming people with corporate names. Hell, a man recently submitted himself to permanent covering with advertisements of various corporations, for cash.

Hello Mr Exxon!
G'day Miss L'Oreal!

[rimpala]

or if you want to be really shameless about it:

Hello Mr. TUM TUM TUM TUM TUMS!

[notmrgarrison]

The downside is the cheapness. Every time someone says the name, they are in effect advertising the company.

[notmrgarrison]

I guess you're not seeing the cheapness, but why should people be forced to be unpaid advertisers?

[policraticus]

One of the few times you"ll see me disagree with badlydrawnjeff...

It seems to me that if you want your name on something you should build it yourself. So, as long the cost of the naming rights equals the cost of construction or maintenance, I'd be OK with naming a bridge or overpass after a company or individual, but just turning our public buildings into billboards is unseemly. The government shouldn't be in the business of owning stadiums, period.

[peristaltor]

It seems to me that if you want your name on something you should build it yourself.

Thank you. My point exactly.

My initiative would not require 100% cost coverage, but that's because I was feeling generous last night.

[notmrgarrison]

[rimpala]

Stark likely built that, there's nothing wrong with businesses owning skyscrapers, the commercial sector of a city is where you expect that after all.

[telemann]

They're doing this to subway cars now on the MTA. A company pays for the special decals and paint jobs necessary for the rights to do this. The MTA is strapped for money. That can raise a lot of thorny questions: imagine a contentious client wanting to buy advertising the MTA can't deny such advertising because in a recent court ruling, denying such ads is a violation of freedom of speech. I certainly wouldn't ride the Westboro Baptist Church subway car :P

[rimpala]

Next stop: GOD HATES DAY PASSES Station

[peristaltor]

We get ads plastered all over our buses and trains, too, but that doesn't really bother me. They are obnoxious but temporary.

By contrast, stadium rights pervade outside our area. Every ball game is broadcast with commentators; every commentator is required to proudly name the stadium (without snark). The stadium's name might not be popular to the locals, but increasingly sports broadcast has made even modest local games the subject of regional, national or even international broadcasts.

Even if every branch of a naming company were to close in the area surrounding the stadium, the naming rights would continue to do their work. A vinyl-wrapped train or bus, by contrast, only offends those who can see it, and only for a few weeks.

[telemann]

A vinyl-wrapped train or bus, by contrast, only offends those who can see it,

Well I use public transport all the time, it's everywhere in the city even when I don't use it, and I see it alot.

But it doesn't bother me either really.