EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT: CITY PLANS TO ENFORCE LAW

There’s an article in the NYT (David Dunlap, 1/6/07) claiming that the city is now going to enforce the law banning advertisements on sidewalk sheds. Although this sounds like good news, it makes you wonder what took them so long. I don’t know how long the law has been on the books, decades probably; it’s scarcely new. (The scofflaws in the article, implausibly, claim not to have known of the law.) Contrast this with the swift sword of justice the city wields against graffiti art and those who practice it. What’s the difference, really, between these two crimes? And why are these building owners being given ten days to take down the ads? That’s ten days of profit at taxpayers’ expense.

And that’s the real issue, profit. $2,500 dollars a month is the maximum fine that can be levied against building owners for illegal advertising, and they stand to make tens of thousands per month on these ads ($40,000-$50,000, according to an 11/29/06 New York Press article by Lindsay Beyerstein). The fines don’t match the potential profits. And the city doesn’t necessarily give them the maximum fine either, and people have to complain repeatedly before they’ll do anything. (Call 311 to lodge a complaint.) And the strategy of the building owners is just to ignore the fines and hope the matter blows over. (What seems to be the case is that, if they don’t pay, the city won’t press the matter; they won’t fine them every month, in other words, but only once.) At the end of the article the author mentions that the city is considering going after ads on scaffolding as well. Silly me, I thought all along they must have been talking about the scaffolding ads as well. These are a much bigger problem, as a walk around the Madison Square Park area will tell you. These gigantic ads are more visible since they are elevated, and hence much more of an eyesore. So why not go after them? The law against them already exists, so what’s the delay? And what about all those gigantic ads that are going up on the sides of buildings? These are not even mentioned in the article, though they are no less illegal than the ads on sidewalk sheds and scaffolding. I guess the city will get around to enforcing the law against these abominations one of these days, after it cracks down on the drinking of beer out of paper sacks—and Kazoo playing on the subway. What’s the hold up, I wonder? Why limit the enforcement to sidewalk sheds? Will cops or bureaucrats become confused? Why not just crack down on all illegal advertising? A case in point, one that I’ve looked into, is the huge “Jag” ad on the side of the old McBurney Y building on 23^rd St. between 7^th and 8^th Avenues. The building owner, Mitchell Marks, has been fined $800 (at least twice) by the Department of Buildings for erecting a sign without a permit. He seems to have paid the fine once, back in 2004, and then been fined $800 again. The last time I checked the DOB database, he still owes the second $800, he still doesn’t have a permit, and the sign is still up. Why doesn’t the city at least fine him the maximum, and keep fining him every month until he takes the sign down? And if the Buildings department can paint over ads on sidewalk sheds, why not this ad as well? The outdoor advertising company Van Wagner is mentioned in the article as being in favor of the new enforcement measures. It should be noted, however, that Van Wagner has a bigger stake in the issue than it lets on, since building owners are putting the signs up themselves now, as the fines against them are much less than the fines against advertising companies. Fines against advertising companies can be up to $25,000 a month, which is still low, considering the potential profits, but at least in the ballpark of an amount that could be effective. We need to call on our city officials to close this loophole in the law: if building owners are going into the advertising business, then they should be subject to the same laws and the same fines as advertising companies. -- Ed Hamilton