This is an archive of a past election.
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sf/ for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund If you appreciate our service to voters, please consider helping us with a donation.
Smart Voter
San Francisco County, CA November 3, 2009 Election
Proposition E
Advertisements on City Property
City of San Francisco

Ordinance - Majority Approval Required

Fail: 46,008 / 46.00% Yes votes ...... 42,365 / 42.72% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions

Results as of Nov 10 4:00pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (428/428)
22.0% Voter Turnout (99,649/451,988)
Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Official Information | Arguments |

Should the City prohibit any increase in advertising on any City owned property, such as buildings and street furniture (news racks, transit shelters etc.)?

Summary Prepared by LWVSF Pro & Con Guide:
The Background In 2002, voters approved Proposition G, an amendment to the Planning Code, which prohibits the construction of additional general outdoor advertising (billboards) on City owned buildings. In 2007, voters approved Proposition K, a declaration of policy to restrict advertising on street furniture and City buildings. This proposition would add the Proposition G (2002) and Proposition K (2007) into the City's Administrative Code, giving them the force of law. Clear Channel provides outdoor furniture to some municipalities in exchange for advertising space. The Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) has an existing contract with Clear Channel to provide the City's bus shelters and news racks in exchange for advertising space. The Proposal Proposition E would prohibit any new general advertising signs on street furniture above that authorized as of January 1, 2008, as well as prohibit new general advertising signs visible to the public on the exterior of City-owned buildings above that authorized as of March 5, 2002. MTA's existing contract with Clear Channel would not be impacted by this proposition, but an expansion of this contract would likely be prevented if this proposition passes.

Fiscal Impact from The Controller of San Francisco:
The Controller states the following: Should the proposed ordinance be approved, in my opinion, it would not in and of itself affect the cost of government. However, restrictions on general advertising would affect the ability of some public agencies to generate revenue. For example, the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) allows advertising on a portion of its transit shelters which generates over fifteen million dollars annually for the City. The proposed ordinance would prevent any expansion of such advertising. The ordinance would prohibit any new general advertising signs on street furniture above that authorized as of January 1, 2008 as well as prohibit new general advertising signs visible on the exterior of Cityowned buildings above that authorized as of March 5,
2002. In 2002, the voters of the City and County of San Francisco approved Proposition G, which updated the Planning Code to prohibit new general advertising. In 2007, the voters approved Proposition K, a policy statement that prohibited increases in general advertising signs on street furniture. The proposed initiative ordinance implements and codifies Proposition G and K into the City's Administrative Code.

Official Sources of Information

 
This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Proposition E Arguments Against Proposition E
1. Voters on two prior occasions have decisively voted against new commercial advertising in the City. This proposition would give the voters' intent the force of law and limit further advertising on City property.
2. This proposition would allow the City to maintain the revenue it receives from existing advertising.
3. This proposition will continue the fight against visual blight and commercialization of public space in the City.

1. This proposition would limit City agencies' ability to generate revenue from new advertising on any of their properties. Advertising should be regulated judiciously on an individual basis, not banned.
2. This proposition would cut off an important funding source that is used to expand the City's news racks and bus shelter programs and could prevent a potential bike sharing program.
3. This proposition could be used to ban advertising for fundraising by City departments and destinations such as the Zoo and museums, and for events receiving City funds.


San Francisco Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: December 29, 2009 12:08 PST
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.