Re: corporate sponsorship

[Bill London <london@moscow.com>]

Pam Palmer sent me this message regarding the banner across Main Street and the
larger issue of corporate sponsorship of community activities.  I asked her if I
could forward this to V2020 and she said yup.
BL

> Pam Palmer wrote:
>
> > Bill-
> > I heard there was some discussion on 2020 about corporate logos on the Main
> > Street banners.  It reminded me of a letter that was submitted to the Daily
> > News almost two years ago.  I'm not sure if it was ever published or not.
> > I thought you might find it useful, if you are interested in the topic.
> > Although the topic in the op-ed piece is not directly about banners on Main
> > Street, it presents the overall issue of corporate sponsorships.
> > Pam
> > ~~~~
> >
> > >Mon, 14 Jun 1999
> >
> > >Dear Mr. Kendall,
> > >
> > >A couple of weeks ago, I visited some friends in your city and had the
> > >opportunity to discuss local political issues.  Reflecting on those
> > >discussions prompted the following op ed piece.  I am submitting it for
> > >your consideration for an upcoming issue of the Daily News.
> > >
> > >By way of bio information, I served two terms as an independent member
> > >of Toledo City Council from 1989-1993, and ran for mayor as an
> > >independent in 1993.  Currently I work as Communications Director for
> > >the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, a union representing
> > >migrant farmworkers in Ohio, Michigan, NC, and Florida.
> > >
> > >Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.  Thank you
> > >very much for  your time and consideration.
> > >
> > >Mike Ferner
> > >
> > >                        ************************
> > >
> > >     On a recent, lovely visit to Moscow, I had the good fortune to take
> > >in many local sights, and  also talk with residents about some of the
> > >issues facing Moscow's citizenry.
> > >     One issue that caught my attention was the question of planning for
> > >the new municipal pool,  and how much corporate sponsorship to allow.
> > >     If you think that questions about whether to allow corporate logos
> > >on umbrellas or a water slide are mundane and trite, I urge you to think
> > >again.  This very question is sweeping the nation's municipalities and
> > >school districts like a wildfire.  And I believe it is not an
> > >overstatement to say that the long-term consequences for our democracy
> > >are every bit as serious.
> > >     For three of the four years I was in local government in Toledo,
> > >our economy, tied closely to the auto industry, experienced a serious
> > >recession.  Day after day we agonized over budget cuts to significant
> > >programs for our citizens.  We scrambled for funds from any source
> > >imaginable.
> > >     It was during this period that we discovered what we thought was an
> > >ingenious source of revenue--not huge, but large enough to save some key
> > >programs from the ax.
> > >     Corporations, like the grocery chain that controlled most of
> > >Toledo's food stores, banks, and manufacturing firms, offered to sponsor
> > >a host of programs in city parks that had previously been strictly
> > >publicly funded.  With only a vague sense of unease, I agreed with my
> > >colleagues who enthusiastically endorsed this great new idea.  Corporate
> > >banners began appearing at many city park events.
> > >     About this same time I noticed the school district embarking on
> > >similar ventures.  At one downtown parade, I saw a high school band
> > >marching behind a banner proclaiming it was "brought to you by
> > >Kroger's."  School buildings began sprouting signs thanking companies
> > >for "adopting us," by providing funding for items not otherwise possible
> > >with tight school budgets.
> > >
> > > It was not until after I left office and took time to seriously reflect
> > >on this new trend that I began to realize that what I had witnessed and
> > >participated in was much more than "entrepreneurial, win-win,
> > >public-private-partnerships."  It was much more than simply a question
> > >of whether corporate signage was in good or bad taste.  It really did
> > >strike to the heart of our democracy at the most fundamental
> > >level--local government.  Here's what I mean.
> > >     With just two tax abatement votes, local government in Toledo
> > >lifted over $100 million in tax liability from Owens-Corning Corp. and
> > >Daimler-Chrysler Corp., and placed it squarely on the backs of local
> > >citizens and small businesses.  In addition to the abatements, local
> > >government gave these companies nearly another $100 million in outright
> > >public "gifts" in the form of infrastructure improvements and cash
> > >grants.  State and federal treasuries were similarly raided.  With the
> > >public purse pauperized, the rest becomes predictable:
> > >
> > >   * School officials help soft drink companies win brand loyalty and
> > >     future market share among young consumers with "sole supplier"
> > >     contracts that promise some added revenues for textbooks.
> > >   * Our public officials told citizens that parks will get improvements
> > >     only when "private partners" are secured--partners that will not
> > >     invest in unseen infrastructure, but only in ball diamonds and
> > >     swimming pools that can be named after them.
> > >   * The same corporations that receive millions in subsidies make
> > >     tax-deductible contributions to school levy campaigns, so the
> > >     patriotic suckers still on the tax rolls can keep public
> > >     institutions afloat.
> > >   * With what remains of our democracy, we elect our city councils and
> > >     school boards.  But none of us voted for the corporate officials
> > >     who increasingly have more to say about allocating resources within
> > >     our public institutions.
> > >
> > >         What do we teach our children and ourselves by all this?  Be
> > >careful.  Don't rock the boat.  If you're a public official, be careful
> > >not to ask "anti-business" questions.  Be quiet.  Get in line.
> > >Government incompetent.  Corporations good. Thank the new monarch for
> > >small favors.
> > >     What a far cry from when populist forces in every state in the
> > >union kept corporations on a very short leash; when "we the people"
> > >understood ourselves to be sovereign over all the institutions we
> > >created--including corporations.  How quickly we went from this status
> > >to simply being consumers and taxpayers with so little control over our
> > >lives and our own institutions.
> > >     Surely this change has been presented to us as "progress," and of
> > >course no one wants to be judged as standing in the way.  But how do we
> > >measure progress?  How have we strayed so far from being self-governing
> > >people?
> > >     For all these reasons, I believe that your debate about corporate
> > >sponsorship of public facilities is more than a question of good taste
> > >or attractive design.  It is about very fundamental values to
> > >self-governing people.  Public facilities should be just
> > >that--public--and not another venue for corporate advertising to
> > >continue its omnipresent assault on our culture and our institutions.
> > >                                   ###