Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
And Torontoist was there to make a video of it.
Context after the jump.
There are a number of things you need to legally erect a billboard in this city. First and foremost is a permit, and because Toronto actually has a reasonably strict sign bylaw, you often need to obtain a variance from City Council before one of those can be issued. Another thing you need, if you're building a fascia (wall) sign, is an encroachment agreement with the owner of the abutting property. This can be as simple as a letter from the adjacent property owner saying he or she is cool with the sign intruding into his or her air space, but usually involves money changing hands.
As is typical for Strategic Media, whom Rami Tabello has dubbed the bottom-dwellers of Toronto's outdoor advertising industry, they obtained none of those things for their sign at 869 Queen Street West. Now, as we all know, not having a permit for a sign isn't much of an actual problem in Toronto; although, under the Municipal Act, the City can legally remove a sign and add the bill to a property owner's taxes, they just won't. Sometimes they'll lay charges against a property owner and eventually have fines imposed by a court, but those penalties of course work out to a fraction of the profit a sign generates. Even then, all a billboard company has to do is sue the City of Toronto, claiming the bylaws are unfair; the City Solicitor will stay all charges until the matter is settled by the courts, and in the intervening years the company can rake in millions of dollars off their illegal signs. That tactic worked like a charm for Titan Outdoor, so Strategic Media followed suit (pun intended) and was granted the same across-the-board immunity.
So really the only way Strategic could fuck up at this point would be to have a sign encroaching on the property of someone who doesn't want it there. Not a problem, most people can be bought. But Strategic, in their arrogance or ignorance, went ahead and built a sign on a wall abutting property owned by Fred Dominelli, one of the most powerful and well-connected backroom players in Toronto politics.
Dominelli's an interesting guy, a larger-than-life figure whom most people haven't heard of but followers of local politics consider one of the most disproportionately influential people in the city. You can read about him in the auto-hagiography vestigially remaining on the City website from the six months in 2003 he was the fill-in councillor for Ward 17 (Davenport). (If a seat becomes vacant after November 30 of the year prior to an election, Council appoints someone to fill the seat, as it's cheaper than holding a by-election.) But it's more entertaining to watch this video, from his 2006 run for Council in the same ward, against incumbent Cesar Palacio and popular NDP challenger Alejandra Bravo. Dominelli knows stuff about illegal billboards himself, raking in revenue from several (including some video screens) on property he owns alongside the Gardiner, in the ward of his longtime close friend, Councillor (and Deputy Mayor) Joe Pantalone. Whether the City builds the Front Street Extension or some other corridor along those lands, he stands to make a good chunk of money from the presciently purchased property; the value of the land is further increased by those illegal billboards, and taxpayers will have to cough up market value for them.
But today Fred's the good guy. While driving along Queen Street on Thursday, Rami noticed a new sign had gone up that day on the side of Pantev Sewing Machine Ltd., the building immediately east of the 7-Eleven near Trinity-Bellwoods. And it had a nameplate: Strategic Media. Which is mostly notable because no other sign of theirs has a nameplate, for obvious reasons. But enjoying the protection afforded by the City Solicitor, Strategic evidently got a little hubristic and decided to claim credit for the city's newest vinyl fascia location. Rami was certain that no billboard company would be stupid enough to build a sign encroaching on the 871-873 Queen West property (the 7-Eleven avec gas station) owned by Dominelli without reaching an agreement with him. So Rami did a post late Thursday night mocking Dominelli for "getting into bed with Strategic Media, the incorrigible bottom dwellers of Toronto’s outdoor advertising industry," despite his 2010 Council ambitions.
Dominelli saw the post bright and early Friday morning (whether he's a regular reader of IllegalSigns.ca or has a Google News Alert set up for his own name is unclear; both are equally plausible) and got Strategic head Dan Pitoscia into his office by 10:30 a.m. Dominelli, it turns out, had no knowledge of this billboard going up, let alone an encroachment agreement. Nor would he ever sign one, as he and the owner of 869 Queen are mortal enemies. As Rami later observed, whoever put up the billboard was criminally trespassing on Dominelli's property, as was the sign itself. But more than that, Dominelli claims the western half (about six inches) of the wall is his, as per a 1996 court ruling (ironically, a ruling that was not in his favour).
Something happened in the meeting between Dominelli and Pitoscia—perhaps Dominelli threatened to press charges or sue?—and Pitoscia agreed to have the sign gone by noon (ninety minutes later). Rather impressively, he was good to his word: a few minutes after 12:00, a single worker from Grant Sign Service (almost certainly the same company that had put the sign up the day before) arrived in a special truck and spent a good twenty minutes carefully taking down the vinyl and detaching the nameplate.
Torontoist brought our camera, bought a cream soda Big Gulp, and settled down on a gas pump island to join Rami and Dominelli watch the magic happen.
Now, vinyl signs are typically just cut down with scissors, so the fact that the GSS worker took great care to leave the sign intact, even rolling it up into a neat bundle, implies that Strategic is planning on re-erecting it elsewhere—Rami speculates 127 Portland. As for the sign structure (the bolts and wires and that stuff), Dominelli requested that it remain so that he can have the damage to his wall assessed prior to possibly taking legal action against his neighbour.
All in all, a good Friday afternoon in the city.
Video and photo by Jonathan Goldsbie. The song in the video (a rearrangement of the Donkey Kong Country bonus level music) is "One Zero One" by Icy Guy, from Kong in Concert, OverClocked ReMix (www.ocremix.org).
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Does erecting the sign without permission mean that they drilled all those anchors into his wall/siding without permission, or was the anchor structure already there?
So the lesson is: if you're putting up illegal signs like a shady fucker, don't do it next to another shady fucker. Just put it up where real people live and profit.
So much for property rights. When Toronto's anti-capitalist gestapo hears about an advertisement they'll send their brown shirt lobbyists to push the city to have it removed. Why are leftists so anti-choice unless it involves killing the unborn?
There are regulations for billboard advertising. These are a variety of reasons for the regulations which include minimizing distractions and preserving architectural integrity, for instance.
You have the right to a billboard on your property. But respect the law. This isn't even a matter of ideology, Pickletoes.
AR: Those may be reasons used to justify the regulations but we all know that the real purpose is to satisfy the radical left's ravenous hatred of capitalism.
Most people have no taste for unregulated, unbridled, lawless capitalism.
I think Torontoist's disproportionate coverage of (encroaching/ubiquitous/evil) public advertising is related directly to this author's intense personal interest in the issue.
Few are concerned about minor by-law matters and billboards across from 7-11's. PT is right, this isn't about defending the rule of law within city limits, it's part of the douche brigade's campaign of self-delusion. Toronto is a city run on business, not bicycles. Advertising is a fact of life, and not all of it is ugly or an eyesore. Sometimes it really is better than a drab brick facade.
Leaving aside the dubious connotation of IllegalSigns' Tabello and the Gestapo [who, according to wikipedia, wore black shirts as a part of the SS, not the SA, and then later grey or civillian garb], this episode probably falls more under the protection of property rights. I think if you asked Fred Dominelli, he wouldn't characterize this as a minor by-law matter, as any infringement on his property is a serious one. As noted in the many graffiti threads, allowing an infringement sets a precedent.
Although the facade beneath the sign is downright ugly, the sign wasn't much better.
Oh, that's why Torontoist is covering this? Because it wants to protect Dominelli's property rights? Because it wants to bring to light the rampant property right infringement occurring in our city, within a legal system that no longer upholds recognizes adverse possession?
I think not. This is being covered because the author has an agenda, one of dubious importance.
I wish graffiti would be removed that fast on my property and paid for by the graffitist too. Then I wouldn't mind graffiti at all. You know, respecting laws and that whole deal.
Let me get this straight. People are defending advertising? Illegal advertising??
Whether a billboard or the wall it obscures is uglier is both a matter of personal taste and legally irrelevant. What's more, arguments that claim "that's just the way it is," "it's been like that for years," and "it's a fact of life" are not only weak, but they dismiss the possibility of change. And that feels like hopelessness to me.
As for agendas, how about Pickle Toes getting an anti-abortion message into a story about billboards! Wow.
The "anti-capitalists" ("douche brigade?" ooh, such bitterness) may have some idiotic agendas, but I'd love to see illegal signs come down. Keep the faith, baby.
What's the motivation behind illegal signs? Is it to reinforce the power of municipal by-laws? the protection of property rights? or is it to minimize advertising?
it's the latter, and at it's core it's based on the assumption that advertising is a negative thing.
My position doesn't arise out of apathy, it arises out of the idea that advertising is important and ads are a part of the fabric of this city. It capable of being as creative as any other expression. I'm fine with enforcing by-laws and protecting indivudal property rights, but I don't think that is what this is about.
He achieves positive results through legal means. May the reasonable bylaws be respected. His agenda is at this point irrelevant.
What does it matter what the motivation is? If the signs are illegal, they're illegal. Should we be allowed to break the law with impunity if the investigator, arresting officer, prosecutor, or judge has an 'agenda' that happens to coincide with the law? Why would it be any different if the complainant or people covering the story are 'motivated'?
It's interesting to know that you need the OK from the owners of the airspace adjacent to put up advertising like this. Does that mean if the owner changes they need to give permission again? Can an owner, or new owner, decide against the allowance and force the billboard down?
I don't see what's wrong with Torontoist having a) a general political leaning b) pet issues. Yes, when a) and b) combine they can become an "agenda". But so what? As a BoingBoing commenter once said about a BB art debate (notably, this commenter isn't me),
Yes, blogs are competitors with traditional journalistic media. That doesn't mean they are (or should be) held to the same standards or operate in the same way. Things like "full disclosure" are more important, things like "having no bias" are less.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about illegal signs. And I also couldn't care less if Torontoist does.
Regarding the ad itself, my money is on Bell. A friend working with them says they've axed the beaver mascots and are preparing a new campaign direction. We've seen them do an extensive citywide teaser campaign before only to reveal a disappointing push for new phones, this could be more of the same.
rek: you're right.
So torontoist having an agenda about illegal advertising and making it a 'pet issue' -- fine.
So how can these same people glorify illegal graffiti?
At least the former contributes BILLIONS of dollars to the economy each year, while the latter just eats up tax dollars, time and effort.
I mean each to their own, but when it comes to logic, the editor/authors of this site seem to have none at all.
To all the people who want to 'change' advertising. Do you realize how many of your friends/co-workers, colleauges would be out of jobs? Not only does advertising employ 100's of thousands of people, the reach of that employment would affect many other industries.
Almost every graphic artist, media techologist, writer blah blah blah would be standing in line at the employment office.
Again, that whole logic thing seems to escape this site (or avoid it possibly?) and it's authors.
As Rami says, it's the difference between crime and organized crime.
And I'm highly doubtful that the advertising industry would cease to exist if one outlet were eliminated.
>As Rami says, it's the difference between crime and organized crime.
:O
:/
:P
>And I'm highly doubtful that the advertising industry would cease to exist if one outlet were eliminated.
I didn't say it would. You should read/listen before opening up the mouth...
torontothegreat is once again mistaking his assumptions for the facts. Torontoist doesn't have an editorial policy requiring its writers to all like or dislike the same things for the same reasons, or be 'on message' or enforce some kind of 'logical consistency' between writers and their topics of choice. Why should they? This is a blog, not a division of CanWest.
please quote where I said any of the above?
Selective perception is awesome!
I'll never understand why some of you are incapable of separating the legal status from the artistic merit (illegal = ugly, we get it) but you could at least try to come up with something new to say each week.
You want logical consistency, but I don't see you launching tirades against Strategic for their illegal wall-related private property activities as you do with regards to street art, graffiti, and their supporters. Instead you hmm and haw about breaking the law being OK when an advertising company does it because, golly, where would The Free Market™ be without advertising? Even Titan, which you admit breaks the law a lot, only escapes with a name-drop.
Did I miss it while selectively perceiving that you expect Torontoist/Jonathan/Posterchild to present a single consistent — in your opinion — front? [comment 18, lines 2 and 4]
...Ahhhh, Rek's famed transference to the rescue!
I like graffiti (street art, as long as it's art and not scribbling). In fact I offered to get my 'street artist' friends to help you out and paint your house for you, to which you never got back to me :(
In fact, I even love a whole lot of urban discourse.
So not sure what you're going on about... Unless of course you're simply providing parataxic distortion and/or projection?
Either way it's cute at best and still doesn't leave you and some of the contributors on this site with any more logic or forethought in the end.
Breaking a law and violating a by-law are not even comparable. Hence the difference in names for the two. Then again, logic was never your strong point, which only helps my point.
p.s. BTW, why did you link to this thread within this quote:
>because, golly, where would The Free Market™ be without advertising?
I didn't even comment in that thread. Trying to (spray) paint a worse picture? A bit dubious, much like the advertisers' Modus Operandi you seem to loathe so much... A bit 'faux'ked up, don't you think?
So here's a guy who's 'mortal enemies' with his neighbour? Sounds like the kind of moron who should be working in a junkyard, not involved in civic politics. (oops sorry, I don't mean to insult junkyard workers)
It takes two twits to be 'mortal enemies' (usually lacking between the legs so needing to compensate with bravado).
It takes an intelligent human being with social skills to be civil and suited for political responsibility.
I hope Dominelli is using his own money in the courts, not ours.
"Mortal enemies" was actually my term and not his; he truly hates the guy (Pantev), and I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual, going back at least to 1991. But Dominelli seems to have a lot of foes, so you shouldn't infer that Pantev is the main antagonist in his life.
"I hope Dominelli is using his own money in the courts, not ours."
Take a look at this, if you haven't already.
Thanks Jonathan. Quite the character he is.
I'm a little perturbed by the unnecessary mention that he is a practicing Catholic. I'm not sure what that is for. The fact that he appears to behave like a stereotypical mobster (is that the point?), is easy pickings and not really a particularly useful target. Especially, despite my being unimpressed with what I see, it's not anything more than an allegation. Not to mention the unfairness to the significant Catholic population that has to share their reputation with him now.
Outside of the colourful description in the blog, I hope this story makes it's rounds with the potential constituents. For all of Mayor Miller's failures, we did hope that the culture of opportunism and self promoting goons had moved on with Mel's vacancy.
As fun as feeding trolls can be, I'll end my role in this conversation by pointing out a few things to you torontothegreat:
1) One can be fined for breaking the law and jailed for violating a bylaw, so there really isn't much difference in the two when you get down to it;
2) You linked to post showing your bias toward advertising (a rather embarrassing eruption, that) after I pointed out your bias toward advertising — LOL as the kids say;
3) I can't and won't speak for others but I've already stated my logically consistent reasons for being capable of defending and appreciating street art and graffiti while harping on advertising and illegal advertising in particular. You should know how to Google with the site: filter, so I'll leave it to you to find.
Rek, you must be confusing your assumptions with the facts or myself with another.
Please quote where I showed my bias towards adversting in said linked thread.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bylaw - You seem quite ignorant to understanding this. Which is funny, cause you're debating it. You don't vote conservative do you?
2. huh?
3. That's how illogical and delusioned you are. Because thus far you haven't been able to say anything cohesive to your point.
Trolling? laughable at best. Seems your 'best defense' is an offense. As soon as ANYONE disagrees with you, you just accuse them of being a troll (rather then someone with an opinion who just happens to not share your own opinion).
It's pretty much the equivalent of being so braindead that you have to resort to slurs to make your point.
Does that mean if the owner changes they need to give permission again? Can an owner, or new owner, decide against the allowance and force the billboard down?
Hey, rek, sorry it's taken me a week to respond. I just asked Rami, and he says that the answers to both questions depend on the details of a specific encroachment agreement or lease.