I am starting to lose track of the game. First Clear Channel - one of the companies competing for Toronto's lucrative outdoor advertising rights - has its Canadian lawyers send a threatening letter to critics of illegal outdoor signs. Then, the following day we hear that one of the other competitors - Astral Media - sent a similar letter to the same group. Have they lost their collective minds?

What were they thinking? Certainly the managers of these companies knew that their attempts to silence critics would become public knowledge. Now the activist genii is out of the bottle and city councillors are threatening to shut down the competition and start again. The press is descending on this issue with a fervour unlike any in recent outdoor advertising memory. (Spacing.ca has a good summary here).

http://www.illegalsigns.ca and its campaign to expose the city's illegal signage is obviously having an impact. Do you wonder why? In case you are thinking that this is a non-issue take a look at this map of illegal signs in the city's core.

Personally, I thought the Robert Millward alleged conflict of interest was a stretch for someone who has done so much for the city, and when professional reputations are threatened lawyers cannot be far behind. Still, this unleashing of the solicitors of war was a reaction that only reinforces the public space activists' hand. That may well be a good thing but I still remember the first generation of public amenities. They were bad. Our streets need well-designed, usable furniture and shelters. The private market can provide that service uinder the appropriate guidelines. If they continue down this litigious path though there will be two losers: the public and those companies.

1. Bob Millward did a lot for the City as planning commissioner but he also made a while lot of serious mistakes.

   Mr. Millward recommended a long series of liberalizations to the sign by-law which permitted the erection of hundreds of billboards where they were previously banned.

   In addition, staff reports that bear his name resulted in the weakening of the enforcement provisions on the law – this weakening has allowed advertising companies to re-erect signs the City ordered removed and prevents the City from taking any action against an illegal sign during construction, even if the inspector witnesses the sign’s construction.

   Much of the billboard blight on our streets can be traced back to bad signs planning under Mr. Millward’s watch.

   I think the conflict of interest in this case is stark: the City has not denied that Millward was repeatedly hired by property owners to develop Kramer video screens. In one case, Mr. Millward worked on the variance application during the time he was project director of the RFP.

   Posted by Rami  on  04/12  at  10:48 AM

2. I am hoping that there is a official ruling/finding on this soon, because I find it disgusting that someone as well-respected as Mr. Millward should have to withstand these allegations. And I do hope he has a lawyer, because no one should have their reputation trashed by someone with a penchant for conspiracy theories, and a clear vendetta from the start. The only thing worse is the City’s failure to mount a proper refutation so far…

   Posted by  on  04/12  at  09:05 PM

3. Rami, thanks for the comment. Reading Toronto appreciates the work illegalsigns.ca is doing to keep the city uncluttered. That said, we need to be careful when being critical of career civil-servants who are capable, experienced, and knowledgable. I do not agree with you that Millward was in an obvious conflict-of-interest situation given the information I have seen in the media. Planners, like lawyers (that must be a bad word for you) find themselves working for clients with a range of interests. Most remain professional and unbiased while doing their jobs ethically and are very sensitive to public criticism.

   Posted by Editor  on  04/12  at  09:13 PM

<< Back to main