October 19, 2007
This Infrastructure Funded By...Not You
If you loved (or hated) MasterCard skating to the rescue of Toronto's outdoor rinks this winter, you'll love (or hate) one of the city's other sponsorship innovations: traffic signals. Yes, Toronto allows—encourages—corporations to pay for the installation of audible pedestrian signals (APS) at the intersections of their choice. In return, companies receive free advertising space at each location declaring their largesse and the city's poverty.
Asked about the practice of allowing private companies to pay for such a basic public service, city staff told us that at an average $50,000 per installation, Toronto can only afford to add APS to 10–15 intersections each year. In the case of the IBM-funded signals at Steeles and Pharmacy Aves. in Scarborough, staff said:
IBM had a blind employee who worked at the IBM facility near the Steeles Ave/Pharmacy Ave intersection and needed assistance to cross the intersection. IBM did not wish to wait until the intersection came to the top of the City's installation priority list so IBM agreed to provide funding to allow this location to proceed immediately without impacting the existing priorities of other locations that were publicly funded.It's difficult to argue against anyone providing funds to install APS at more intersections. If that's where it ended, it wouldn't be objectionable at all. After all, contributions by private entities—corporations and individuals alike—toward public services are normally called "taxes." But the rules are a little different when taxes are offered up voluntarily. Staff went on to explain the rationale behind the signs marking each contribution:
In recognition of this contribution that benefits all visually-impaired pedestrians (not just IBM employees), small signs were installed to:
- recognize the contribution by the company
- provide information that this intersection did not get undue priority for public funding
- draw the attention of other large employers/corporate sponsors that they could assist their employees and contribute to civic improvement in this manner.
There are several problems with this logic. Sponsored intersections may not get undue priority for public funding, but they do get undue priority. Presumably, the city's list of intersections slated for APS installations is prioritized roughly by need and demand. If IBM or some other sponsor bumps an intersection up the list by paying for the installation, it effectively bypasses the city's decision-making processes and imposes its own. If corporations are willing to spend money to "contribute to civic improvement," why not just raise that money through taxation? It would give the city the freedom to decide exactly which parts of the civic realm require improvement, rather than relying on private donors to make those choices.
The intersections where we've noticed these sponsored signals—including Don Mills Road at both Eglinton and Lawrence Avenue, and Pharmacy and Steeles Avenue—have relatively low pedestrian traffic, suggesting that they may have been low-priority APS locations for a reason.
Would the city have been better served if the money for these sponsored APS installations went to pay for implementing the TTC's automated subway station and bus stop announcements instead? We certainly don't pretend to know the answer. But the crux of the matter is that with the money coming from a private donor and attached only to a specific project specified by the donor, the city is unable to make that determination. It's not a matter of evaluating the merit of one project against the other; someone else already made the decision.
It looks like we can add one more thing to the list of basic services and infrastructure that the city no longer feels it can afford to provide.
|
This slope is slippery, alright.
I'm not sure if this is as sinister as you might imagine. Who does the city pay to install and maintain hardware at intersections? A third-party electrical company, that's who. Gould Electric, if I recall correctly.
They're under contract to the city to provide this service but they do other business as well. The city's priority queue for intersection signage is just another piece of business to them, and they can easily add resources to take care of a corporate-funded intersection-signage package without delaying or diverting crews already working on the city's existing priority queue.
This is probably one of the only situations where outsourcing of service functions actually works - because it is a corporate enterprise, the capacity for work is almost endlessly expandable - the business grows as the need rises, whereas government operations require funding, approvals, assessments, oversight, etc etc.
IBM, etc are not jumping the queue - they're creating an entirely different queue that doesn't interfere with the existing one.
Don Mills and Eglinton is a very busy foot traffic intersection (try making a right hand turn at rush hour.. not easy) and one of the first places I can remember hearing the APS beeps (at least 10 years ago).
So perhaps this sponsorship was only a recent one over an already existing APS system?
Or is this not really a new issue, but something the city has encouraged since before Miller was Mayor?
IBM, etc are not jumping the queue - they're creating an entirely different queue that doesn't interfere with the existing one.
Shhhh, you're spoiling the hipster "public services usurped by evil corporations!" meme. Private companies are not allowed to service public entities in Toronto, that would spoil the flawless urban precision of the Precious.
There's some logic to the objection in this post, but the tone comes across as "screw the blind guys, I want TTC money instead".
I used to work at Don Mills and Eglinton—that intersection is a death trap, and crossing it as a pedestrian is an exercise in courage.
Supposedly this has been the case since the late 90's.
Where exactly is the problem here?
A corporation donated money to a public service and the city responded with a small, tasteful commemorative plaque?
No. Nope. I'm not seeing the problem.
I mean, I thought Blanche Nuit was pretty disgusting and all, and I didn't like being accosted to sign up for credit cards and cell phones while I was trying to appreciate art, but doesn't this kinda sorta seem pretty innocuous? Especially since the only qualifying complaint you could possibly have with it has been disproved (queue jumping using up limited city resources I'm fine with it, just like I'm fine those little brass plaques at theatres and university saying "Thanks to the donation of Herb and Sally Rosenbaum." It's kinda a bit of a cultural nicety in most parts of the world that when somebody gives you a gift, you give one back.
Seems to me that a company decided to spend a little money and help out a disabled employee and improve their immediate community. Bigdaddyhame has an excellent point - they're not slowing down or inhibiting any publicly-funded APS installations. I hope more companies can give back a littlelike this in the future.
I think the City deserve a round of applause for restricting the signs to those little squares and not, as they seem wont to do, turning the whole pole into ad space for the sponsor.
The culture of 'Little Commemorative Plaques' is rampant in our city. The IBM crosswalk thing is the tiniest thing compared to the branding inside our hospitals ... take one look inside Mt. Sinai and you will see walls full of them - in fact, just about every noticeable machine or architectural element has a little brass plaque attached to it, in the memory of or in tribute to whoever donated the funding that matched the cost of that element. It's not just individuals, too - corporations are involved, and power couples who might as well be corporations (and some are) have their names all over the place. What is the difference between IBM donating a crosswalk and Heather Reisman and Gerald Schwartz funding the emergency department at Sinai?
The reality of the situation is that public infrastructure and institutions cannot get along without help from individuals and corporations, separate from the tax structure. Ever seen those signs along rural routes and highways indicating the road is sponsored by the Boy Scouts or the Kiwanis or some local company? Bingo, more private funding of public infrastructure.
And you know what the cherry on this is? It means lower taxes. You and me don't have to pay so much to maintain the roads, to build hospitals, to make intersections safer, because of the help of private interests. If the only cost is to give them a little brass plaque, then bring on the plaques.
The basic question is, if the city had $50,000 to spend on upgrading or adding services to help the blind (or anyone else), is that money best spent on an APS installation at Steeles & Pharmacy? If that money comes out of the city's pocket, it can determine where best to spend the money. If it comes out of a donor's pocket, then the city can't make any decisions about how to use the money.
The city is not getting something for nothing, it's selling advertising at high-traffic intersections. Which is a fine thing to do, as long as you realize that's what you're doing. In fact, the city could probably bring in a hell of a lot more money just by selling little signs with company names and logos at every intersection. By selling advertising unlinked to specific projects, the city could decide where the money goes. Bonus!
City staff indicated to me that the IBM-requested APS installation at Steeles & Pharmacy dates to 1998.
Chris, the TTC is rolling out its automated announcement systems because it has lost human rights cases for not calling out stops and stations for blind passengers, not because hipsters are demanding that it do so. I'd be just as happy if all the drivers called out all of the stops themselves so we could spend the money elsewhere. Call me a hipster if you must, but you'd be the first.
For the record, I'm not opposed to private money funding public infrastructure. I just think that more of that private money should be raised through donation forms called "tax returns" rather than through the sale of advertising.
Kevin, Yes, the slope is slippery.
Won't comment on the
"Shhhh, you're spoiling the hipster "public services usurped by evil corporations!" meme."
remark, because it was a ridiculous remark and it's not worth it. Again, no one seems to be the least bit concerned that coporations have more money than your' city (or some countries for that matter).
Be careful who you let help you, it may seem like a small price now, but I assure you...we will pay later.
Wait until IBM or another corporation asks you to finally sell your' soul (and they will)and says, "But Toronto...haven't we been good to you?" You are forgetting that corporations do NOT do things out of the good of their hearts, they don't have hearts, they have bottom-lines, period...
yes, they installed the APS and that little plaque is there to never let you forget it.
If they want to impress me...do it anonymously.
Good point Val about preferring that the city do the prioritizing on $50,000. But that doesn't get things done. The procedural wrangling and red tape and wheelspinning, not to mention the grandstanding and credit-taking exercise that would surround the spending of that $50k might actually end up costing us more than the $50k they propose to spend.
Speaking of ridiculous remarks:
Wait until IBM or another corporation asks you to finally sell your' soul (and they will)and says, "But Toronto...haven't we been good to you?" You are forgetting that corporations do NOT do things out of the good of their hearts, they don't have hearts, they have bottom-lines, period...
They also don't have autonomous intelligence, a sense of smell, free will, or human failings -- like say greed. A corporation is a wad of rules plus some liquid and fixed assets. It's not an anthropomorphic self-aware entity. Don't you think there's a wee bit of cognitive dissonance in denying corporations any human virtues, but assuming them to be full of human faults?
Whatever virtues or faults an organisation has (whether it be for-profit or non-profit, private or public) are directly attributable to the individual human beings within that organisation making specific decisions governing corporate behaviour.
In this case somebody inside Big Blue decided that it was worth the time and effort to get in touch with the city and see how the corp might ameliorate conditions for certain employees trying to get to work. Which is a fairly common practice, I might add.
I also used to work around Don Mills and Eglinton - for the company NBRS, who helped sponsor the APS there. That company is a non-profit dedicated to making visual media (print, tv/movies) accessible to the vision-impaired, and they have more than a few employees who are vision-impaired and have to navigate the busy and messy traffic in that area, which is also known for its high population of elderly people who don't have an easy time getting around there.
Sure, it may not be fair they got an APS ahead of some other places, but as with the IBM case, it's not like there was no need for it except for some glorified advertising. Of course, it'd be great if the city could pay for everything, but to the most important people in this matter, the people who actually need APS, I don't think they care much who pays and whose logo is on some little sign. Just get it done.
The IBM Sponsored APS's were done somewhere in the range of a decade ago and those signs have been around since then, way to be on the ball there. What's next complaining about tobacco companies sponsoring the Jazz Festival?
To IBM I say thanks.
I'm a bit impressed by IBM's little philanthropic move too. I'm already a customer of theirs though, so oh well. Apple, time to step up to the plate and paint some schools!
This post is really bad. The logic is flawed and the conclusions are faulty.
there is no problem here. if IBM was painting their logo in massive letters along the crosswalk or if the city said they can longer afford to fund any APS installations then there certainly would be an issue. this though is just IBM doing something nice for one of their employees.
Elliot: If by "really bad" you mean that you disagree, that's fine; the world is big enough for more than one opinion. But I see nothing in your criticism to support your assertion that the logic is flawed and the conclusions faulty. You seem only to be claiming that the issue isn't out of control enough to be considered a problem.
Sorry, I meant to say I worked Don Mills and Lawrence (also home of the late, lamented Don Mills Centre), not Don Mills and Eglinton.
Val,
You are describing an incredibly insignificant issue that has little or no implications on anything so there is nothing to disagree with. You are sensationalizing. Of course the city can't afford to put APS in at EVERY intersection in the city. That would be a ludicrous waste of money.
Also, the solutions you propose (to the problem that doesn't exist) are bogus.
Let me explain why your article is below the standards that I have come to expect from Torontoist-
"In return, companies receive free advertising space at each location declaring their largesse and the city's poverty." Free advertising??? It's a tiny sign at one intersection. IBM spends millions on marketing and you think they care about that little sign? Before you reported on it, only a small handful of people would have ever noticed it.
"If corporations are willing to spend money to "contribute to civic improvement," why not just raise that money through taxation?" ANSWER- They are already taxed! IBM was creating a safer work experience for their employee, not embarking on some grand altruistic civic improvement mission.
"In recognition of this contribution that benefits all visually-impaired pedestrians (not just IBM employees), small signs were installed to:
* recognize the contribution by the company
* provide information that this intersection did not get undue priority for public funding
* draw the attention of other large employers/corporate sponsors that they could assist their employees and contribute to civic improvement in this manner.
There are several problems with this logic." Actually Val, this logic makes perfect sense.
"Presumably, the city's list of intersections slated for APS installations is prioritized roughly by need and demand. If IBM or some other sponsor bumps an intersection up the list by paying for the installation, it effectively bypasses the city's decision-making processes and imposes its own."
WELL OF COURSE! The money they have after they pay their taxes, employees, and other costs is theirs to do with as they please.
"Would the city have been better served if the money for these sponsored APS installations went to pay for implementing the TTC's automated subway station and bus stop announcements instead? We certainly don't pretend to know the answer. But the crux of the matter is that with the money coming from a private donor and attached only to a specific project specified by the donor, the city is unable to make that determination. It's not a matter of evaluating the merit of one project against the other; someone else already made the decision." SO WHAT??? lol. If I go to someone's house with a bouquet of daisies but they would have proffered tulips, is there a problem? No.
"It looks like we can add one more thing to the list of basic services and infrastructure that the city no longer feels it can afford to provide." Wrong. The city can't afford nor has it ever claimed to be able to afford to install APS at every intersection in the city by 2007. Why don't you write a story about one of those other things on that "list of basic services and infrastructure that the city no longer feels it can afford to provide." That's the real story. This article is just an overly complicated (and somehow, at the same time, very superficial) look at a non-issue.
You don't really seem to give an opinion on whether you think this is good or bad, you just make it seem like it's a shocking- "Yes, Toronto allows—encourages—corporations to pay for the installation of audible pedestrian signals (APS) at the intersections of their choice." *GASP*
Val, there is no substance to your article, that's why it's bad.
Elliot,
Nowhere did I claim that the city should install APS at every intersection, this year or any other year. I really don't know where you get the idea that I said anything of the sort.
I'm sure you've guessed that I think the signing is a bad idea. But let me be clear—I don't think that IBM is the villain here and I don't fault them, whatever their motivation. What I do think is that the city is looking in the wrong places for funding. When all this started in 1998, the context would have included Mel Lastman's ill-advised pledge not to raise taxes. That the city is still pleading poverty 10 years later when it comes to installing APS at a handful of intersections is indicative of a larger problem: supposedly, we can't afford to pay for our own infrastructure.
I happen to think that if the city is in the business of providing some kind of public infrastructure—whether traffic signals, bridges, roads, or sewers—then the city should properly fund it and not look for external non-public funding. If APS needs to be installed at a particular intersection, we should all pay for it—just like we all pay for the traffic lights, signs, and road paint at that intersection. Even if the only person using it is an IBM employee, we should all pony up. That's what makes it public infrastructure. Call me a communist (or a hipster, as the case may be).
In the grand scheme of things, the money we're talking about isn't a huge amount, and the signs (at a number of intersections, not just one) aren't terribly obtrusive. To you, that means that the issue is "incredibly insignificant." But that's kind of the point: the public fabric is being given away not by giant bolts but by little nibbling swatches, no one of which amounts to much of anything.
Although these "tiny signs" may not be a huge issue in themselves, they are part of a much larger and accelerating pattern. This article only highlights one little corner of the larger issue that we both agree exists.
"This article only highlights one little corner of the larger issue that we both agree exists."
Legit but you should have gone deeper into this and it should have been what the article was about with APS as an example.
All in all, I like what you're saying.