December 08, 2004
City Council Adopts Mayor's Murals Proposal
Change To Code Moves Them Into City's Public Art Process
Today, after some additional discussion, City Council approved Mayor Katz's "public art murals" proposal by a vote of four to one. As expected (and as readers here could guess from the comments thread to our previous murals item), Commissioner Leonard voted against the proposal.
For the bulk of the necessary background, see our December 3 item on the first reading of this ordinance.
"Obviously we need public art and we need public murals," said Commissioner Francesconi, adding that his only concern had been whether or not the proposal would survive a constitutional challenge. "I don't know for sure if it will," he said. "It's my hope that it will, and my belief that it will."
"Whether it is constitutional or not is not going to be decided here," said Commissioner Leonard, "but rather in the courts." For the purposes of his final comments before voting, Leonard set aside the constitutional question and focused instead on his view of the proposals merits in and of themselves.
"Under the proposal, one of the requirements is that a property owner deed an easement to the City," Leonard said. "I cannot imagine that that will be taken advantage of by many building owners." He added, "I hope I'm wrong."
Leonard also argued that the RACC approval process would create "a scenario of unintended consequences" in which a building owner would grant the City an easement only to have RACC approve for the property a mural to which the property owner objects.
(A quick interjection. Our own reading of the Mayor's plan seems to indicate that a building owner would be granting an easement to the City for a specific mural proposal, and not a general easement which they City can then utilize for any random mural proposal. In which case, if this reading is correct, the building owner would have no reason to object to the mural since they were in on the specifics from the very beginning of the process. If we're wrong in our reading of the proposal, then Leonard's hypothetical is certainly possible.)
Finally, Leonard returned to a broader point about what he sees as a potential implication of the proposal.
"When a public body for good purposes develops a strategy to circumvent the free speech provision of our state's constitution," he said, "we have unwittingly paved the way for others to do the same thing for goals that wouldn't be supported by the public."
"I'm going to support this," said Commissioner Saltzman, while admitting he has had some constitutional concerns along the way. "I think our community deserves to give it a shot."
Commissioner Sten framed the proposal as an "important topic about what type of City we're in" and repeated his statement from last week that he was the sole Council member not to support the original ban on painted signs, figuring it was better to have everything than nothing.
"This is a vast improvement," he said. "It's a voluntary decision that's made by a property owner that then goes to a public art process that is well vetted."
Sten also offered some broader context of his own. "We're in this position because the sign industry has put itself in a position to dominate city councils nationwide," he charged, adding that the only reason he could think of for this proposal to be challenged in court is if the sign industry simply wanted to interfere (our term, not his) with the murals process because it isn't getting it's own way on signs and billboards.
"I made my point last week," said Mayor Katz. "It's a quirky idea ... and it has some risks." She repeated her promise of last Wednesday to watch how the process develops and work to help make any changes that may be necessary along the way.
As a non-emergency ordinance, the public art murals language goes into effect thirty days after adoption by City Council.
Comments (8)
allehseya on 08 Dec 2004
Eric Sten is right on target except that when I read it I replace "sign industry" with "Clear Channel or Media Monopoly" when b!X reports:
"Sten also offered some broader context of his own. 'We're in this position because the sign industry has put itself in a position to dominate city councils nationwide,' he charged, adding that the only reason he could think of for this proposal to be challenged in court is if the sign industry simply wanted to interfere (our term, not his) with the murals process because it isn't getting it's own way on signs and billboards."
Lovely. We have now set the precedent I dreaded and outlined in b!X' earlier coverage on this topic.
Congrats for missing an opportunity to take a *real* (and unified) stand on the *real* issues involved, Commissioners.
allehseya on 08 Dec 2004
re: the greater issues that *were not* addressed
Out of curiosity, can the court ruling be contested? (from Clear Channel's law suit which states, according to Randy Leonard, that advertisements in the form of murals are protected under free speech and is the cause of all this Red Tape.)
My suggestion of not funding the murals through RACC for ONE year is based on that court ruling and this ridiculous notion that advertising is equivalent in function to ‘art.’
While I agree with b!X in that advertising may contain artistic ‘attributes’, and I agree with the courts in that it does ‘express’ – it is the *intent* and the manner in which it *serves* the public subjected to its message that renders it a different genre of ‘expression’ from ‘art’ and therefore subject to a different set of criteria in regulating it.
If City council votes in favor of the Mayors mural proposal and the city funds the Public Art Murals through RACC -- and the courts have decided that advertising is to be viewed as an ‘artistic’ mural would – and the Mayor’s Proposal allows for commercial murals to be funded in the same manner of art – then I contend (at the risk of sounding redundant) that the danger is that we will have allowed a Media Monopoly to go unregulated by Allowing itself to disguise itself as art.
As an arts AND media advocate – I say:
1.) Vote against the Mayors mural proposal which means not instituting the Public Art Murals through RACC (for One year)
2.) Provide incentives for businesses that support displaying ‘art’ as opposed to ‘advertising’ on their property (monitor and assess how that model works for the duration of that One year)
3.) Contest the ruling that allows business advertising to disguise itself as art
4.) Expose the Clear Channel monopoly for what it is and how their lawsuit infringed upon local arts and culture for the sake of business interests
5.) Develop new criteria to allow for competition within the monopoly that Clear Channel represents and
6.) Develop new regulations for that media industry – including billboard signage
I in noooooooo way meant to imply that the city should stop funding RACC (I am an artist after all)
I do, however, mean to stress that should a program such as the Public Art Murals become adopted due to the Mayors proposal and under the current court ruling, (as I understand it) it would set a precedent for a local and national Media Monopoly model to infringe upon and compromise the Arts and Culture terrain.
Hiding behind the argument of civil liberties (free speech) doesn’t justify it (not even to me, the ‘bleeding heart liberal’) – it's an argument and loophole used by business only for the sake of maintaining their hold on the their media conglomerate's practices – and for further serving their own business interests – not the *publics* interest --- not *arts.*
And we, as an Arts and Culture industry, as a progressive city, should have no part of it.
The One True b!X on 08 Dec 2004
Out of curiosity, can the court ruling be contested? (from Clear Channel's law suit which states, according to Randy Leonard, that advertisements in the form of murals are protected under free speech and is the cause of all this Red Tape.)
What the lawsuit resulted in was the court saying that Portland' sign code at the time was unconstitutional because it distinguished between commercial and non-commercial speech -- which the court said abridges Oregon's expansive free speech protections.
That ruling continues, technically, to be in the court system, although I don't recall offhand just what stage it's at.
The One True b!X on 08 Dec 2004
Actually, I should say that I think it's still in the court system somewhere. Don't quote me on that.
What the City did at the time, after the ruling, was get rid of the sign code provision which distinguished commercial from non-commercial.
The One True b!X on 08 Dec 2004
Eric Sten is right on target except that when I read it I replace "sign industry" with "Clear Channel or Media Monopoly"...
I'm sure it was generally understood by most people that when he said "sign industry" he's talking mainly about Clear Channel Outdoor.
allehseya on 08 Dec 2004
"What the City did at the time, after the ruling, was get rid of the sign code provision which distinguished commercial from non-commercial."
Which is insane -- because there *are* distinguishing differences between the two! I contend that the ruling itself should've been (and should be) contested as opposed to having our sign code adjusted and all of this red tape implemented --- while the larger issue skirts by without a blemish as it claims to be a victim of civil liberty injustices, calling itself art when it's only expression is towards making another buck. (as if Clear Channel doesnt have enough?)
allehseya on 09 Dec 2004
I wonder what the same court that passed the ruling would say about this ?
"A group of antiwar advocates is accusing Clear Channel Communications, one of the nation's largest media companies, with close ties to national Republicans, of preventing the group from displaying a Times Square billboard critical of the war in Iraq.
The billboard - an image of a red, white and blue bomb with the words "Democracy Is Best Taught by Example, Not by War" - was supposed to go up next month, the antiwar group said, and it was to be in place when Republicans from across the country gathered in New York City to nominate President Bush for a second term."
Interestingly, the journalists who wrote the article for The New York Times (reposted here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/071304K.shtml)go on to state that:
"Part of what may be fueling speculation about the company's motives is the close relationship that its executives have with the Republican Party and the Bush administration. In the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, for instance, the company and its officials donated slightly more than $300,000 in unregulated money, almost all of it to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, an organization in Washington that monitors political contributions.
In addition, Tom Hicks, the Texas Rangers' owner who has longtime ties to President Bush, is a top executive at Clear Channel."
Out of curiosity -- what is/are the name of the judge(s) that ruled in the Clear Channel Outdoors lawsuit leading to all of this revision of our sign code?
allehseya on 13 Dec 2004
In the event that anyone might be following this thread (which I doubt) --- it is my understanding that Michael H. Marcus, was the (non-partisan) Judge in the final ruling.
My research on this topic brought six email correspondences to light. They cover a time period from August 2003 to October 2003. They are posted on the Metro Murals’ web site with permission from Leslie Rosenberg (Chair of Metro Murals, Ty Kovatch (Chief-of-Staff for Portland Commissioner Randy Leonard) and City of Portland Commissioner Randy Leonard. (as stated in the downloadable PDF file.)
What I found to be of interest were the following quotes where Commissioner Randy Leonard states:
“ As the law has been explained to me, the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that the city shall not regulate the content within boundaries that the city may set for wall signs or bill boards.
-- and to which Leslie Rosenberg responds:
“. . . the AK Media case never went to the Oregon Supreme Court. It was only judged in a circuit court. The circuit court did use other Supreme Court decisions to make a judgment on the AK Media Case. In Judge Marcus’s brief, he even wrote that he is open to alternative distinctions between signs and murals. We believe there are alternatives to the code that “think outside the box.” Unfortunately, the city did not stand up for public art at that time.”
In the event that Leslie Rosenberg is correct regarding Judge Marcus’ willingness to review alternative distinctions – the question (continues to) arise in my mind – then why not pursue clarifying those distinctions? Is it too late just because the council has voted to pass the Mayors proposal?
For those artists interested in this topic: the Metro Murals website states:
“In November 1998, the City of Portland's sign code redefined ‘sign’ to refer to both
commercial advertisements and community-based murals. Metro Murals does not believe advertisements and murals should be treated equally”