Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
Paterson Bombshell Rumor Watch: Resignation Imminent?
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Paterson "Bombshell" Just PG-13?
The advertising company couldn't keep up with all the whitewashing, though-- here artists Serf and Mint put up a piece on a reclaimed billboard. (Jake Dobkin)
You may have noticed teams of people in orange vests whitewashing advertising billboards in Manhattan and Brooklyn today. They weren't employees of NPA, the company that maintains the billboards. In fact, they were part of a subversive network convened by the Public Art Campaign to take back hundreds of advertising locations that NPA has placed around the city.
We tagged along with one of the whitewashing teams this morning in SoHo, as they took down five billboards. Surprisingly, no one looked twice at them as they walked around with an enormous bucket of paint, brushes, and a wobbly cart. Later, we biked over to LES, where NPA employees had already commenced retaking the whitewashed billboards, less than an hour after they were painted. And still later, we took some shots of the artists the PAC had organized to paint the remaining billboards.
Only time will tell if this protest will call attention to the problem of pervasive, illegal advertising here in New York. So far, the city has been loathe to enforce the existing zoning rules that are supposed to prevent these kinds of ads, and from the complete lack of reaction of the local police officers we saw today, that doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon.
Did you take any good billboard pix today? Send them to us at photos@gothamist.com, or tag them "gothamist" on Flickr, and we'll add them to the gallery.
Update: the Times is reporting that five people were arrested in connection with the protest.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
What these PAC people are doing is illegal. No doubt the cops who saw them didn't intervene because the cops had no reason to believe they weren't from the billboard company.
I trailed one of the NPA trucks for awhile, watching as they took back the billboards. One guy would pull up at a hydrant, jump out, and in about 90s, completely cover the billboard with new posters. In a couple of instances, there were cops on the block, or just around the corner, and they definitely seemed like they could care less.
It's a tricky issue-- NPA pays the landlords of the buildings, who like receiving the money. And some kinds of commercial speech are protected by city law- it just happens that this particular kind of billboard, in residential neighborhoods, is illegal. What surprises me is that the city doesn't write more tickets and fines-- in this kind of recession, we could definitely use the money.
One thing that I don't like, as a graffiti enthusiast, is the way the campaign replaces advertising with graffiti, in the same spots. I think that kind of draws an obvious comparison between them- and in the eyes of the public, they can then both be considered unwanted visual pollution. I'd rather just see the billboards torn down, and the zoning regulations enforced.
"In a couple of instances, there were cops on the block, or just around the corner, and they definitely seemed like they could care less."
What? You're saying some NYPD cops are lazy? Stop the presses! Gee, like that's something Gothamistas have never read here before.
"Update: the Times is reporting that five people were arrested in connection with the protest."
What's that kid say on The Simpsons? Oh, yeah. HAA HAA!
Police probably thought they were just making more space for Bloomberg ads.
These weirdos are out of control. Enough said.
The NPA has every right, by virtue of being permitted to by the landlords of these building and paying them for this, to erect their billboards. What the PAC is doing is illegal. We charge them with trespassing and graffiti, period. Have you read their site? It talks about 'assumptions' and 'psychological effects.' What a crock.
I hate this.
i hate people who hate this.
PAC are heroes, risking harassment from greedy, unscrupulous landlords and equally scummy billboard thugs who ILLEGALLY put up billboards in Residential areas. Even many of the billboards in Commercial and Manufacturing zones are illegal. Advertising revenues are so great that the fines they receive are a mere cost of doing business.
As a matter of fact, the billboards being painted over in this picture are located on a building owned by PEP Realty. PEP is owned by the Pasquale family, who also controlled the carting industry in that neighborhood until Giuliani broke the back of the O.C. control of the carting industry (Think Tony Soprano). So, in this case the goons at PEP are doing business as usual working with the thugs in the billboard industry to visually pollute our environment.
Additionally, permits are require from Department of Buildings to put up a billboard, so these scumbag companies and landlords are stealing from the City's coffers.
PAC are taking back our streetscape from people who would pollute it for the almighty buck.
Only a Mad Man would support illegal plastering of buildings with more obnoxious advertising.
Damn, I agree with thefacts.
Fuck!
I don't get it, how is it a public space if it is on private property??
Some people care about visual space. For instance, many a homeowner might object if someone put a large animated pornographic billboard right next to their house. Of course, you wouldn't care, but some people are odd that way.
Or like drinking on the porch. I see your point now...
Landlords that allow this garbage to be put up illegally should be fined $100,000 per incident. That would aid the city's coffers.
It's almost like the city is unaware of these things. I find that hard to believe.
i can't believe you people care so much about something so trivial. omg there are ads and theyre ILLEGALLLLLLLLL
the real problem is uneven enforcement of the law. Advertisements put up illegally get a free pass while illegal graffiti artists are prosecuted, jailed, and fined.... How much sense does that make? How fucked is it?
Maybe because the graffiti artists don't own anything and don't have to pay anything to clean it up.
perhaps the PAc can wage a war against "Marty Deceve" and his ubiquitous annoying stickers.
Actually, the city _does_ issue plenty of violations. Ever since the regulations were changed a few years ago, the city has gone on an enforcement kick. They raised the penalties from a few hundred dollars, which landlords were happy to pay rather than change their behavior, to $10,000 a pop. Typically, when the DoB issues violations, it will issue five or six or seven for the same sign (one for each of several regulations the sign is violating). When landlords get hit with a potential $70,000 liability, it gets their attention. Of course, as with anything, some landlords still act like scofflaws, and fights over the legal issues involved are working their way through the courts. Could the city issue more violations? Probably, but please don't say that the city is ignoring the issue.
The irony is that by covering up the illegal signs with paint, PAC could be helping the landlords avoid getting fined for the illegal signs.
I think painting over the ads to reclaim public space is a good idea, but why paint something ELSE. I'd much rather see a blank wall than some undergrad's half-baked "street art."
"The NPA has every right, by virtue of being permitted to by the landlords of these building and paying them for this, to erect their billboards"
What? No. They don't. Owning a building doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. These advertisements are illegal; landlords wanting to profit by flaunting the regulations doesn't change that.
They would've only had a point if they kept the repainted surfaces blank. Painting a new message is still polluting the public space. Instead of advertising, we get platitudes.
Yep. Here's an idea: Instead of doing this garbage, start a march or something. Make a website. Write the papers. Anything else that would legally attract attention to the problem. When all is said and done, this is nothing but an act of ego and arrogance. "Our work is better than their work."
the problem is these billboards aren't illegal. The landlords are taking advantage of some strange loophole in the law. If they say that you can win these posters at a business that's soon opening there (or something like it), then it's somehow legal. Even in the picture in this article, at the top of the billboard there's that sentence.
Ads everywhere are a visual nuisance. Time for the city to close that loophole.
What part of "billboards installed without permits are illegal" don't you understand?
I know what I wrote is correct. When the landlord attaches that sentence to a billboard attached to a residential building , the he's within the law.
Maybe you should look it up, idiot!
"When the landlord attaches that sentence to a billboard attached to a residential building , the he's within the law."
No, that's not correct. Simply attaching that sentence doesn't make it a legal sign, because the sentence is not true. It's a claim that they're not in the outdoor advertising business; that the landlord is just advertising posters that he's raffling off. Eventually.
If that were true, the signs would be legal (assuming no other element made them illegal anyway). Since it's not true, and since in fact someone is paying for the advertising space, they are not legal.
I've forgotten more about the Billboard legislation than you'll ever know.
The anonymity of the internet sure provides pussies like you protections, doesn't it, little guy?
hahaha. alright, big man!
feel better now?
Shouldve paint over some bike lanes
Or Vespas.
I read this piece this morning. It brings up some very interesting questions regarding censorship. Who proclaimed this group to become artiter of art, taste and commerce? As I was reading this in SOHO, over coffee at 6am this morning, I then took a walk to the corner of McDougal and Houston, where there was a giant public mural with a sales pitch to visit MOMA. Because there was an image attached, does that fall under art or commerce? Was it overlooked because it was from MOMA? Is this censorship? Is this approved commercial treatment?
Tim Schreier
NY, NY
arbiter, sorry for the typo
Who appointed this group to become arbiter of art, taste and commerce? Why, they did, of course. It's the battle cry of all would-be "street artists." The great, unwashed masses (that's us) don't know what good art is, so it's up to them to educate us, whether we like it or not. They also decry that it's some kind of "visual pollution," never mind that any real New Yorker pays barely any attention to outdoor ads. Ask me to name five billboards I saw today and I honestly couldn't tell you.
Ok, told it to the press, 5 artists went to jail, check, check. Good ideas and taken care of.
No need to feel threatened on grounds of taste however Spirit and Tim. Street art is the unwashed masses. It stoops as low as possible. If you'd like to see it stoop lower, you can join in and that matter is resolved also, I mean, its up to you.
If you are able to ignore quality of life degradation, that might be a real skill you could offer to "educate us"
Quality of life degradation? That would be untalented "street artist" hacks who think their graffiti deserves to be seen, even though nobody would give them a penny for it.
What NPA is doing is in fact illegal. These guys, owners of the buildings as well as NPA, owe the city millions and millions of dollars. Here's the law, which was put in place to stop visual pollution (which NPA definitely contributes to):
ยง 26-256 Civil penalties.
a. Any person who places or maintains a sign on a building or premises without an appropriate permit in violation of section 26-253 of this article shall be liable for a civil penalty of, for a first violation, not more than fifteen thousand dollars and, for a second or subsequent violation, not more than twenty-five thousand dollars. Each day's continuance shall be a separate and distinct violation. Such civil penalties may be recovered in an action in any court of appropriate jurisdiction or in a proceeding before the environmental control board. Such board shall have the power to impose the civil penalties provided for in this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of section six hundred sixty-six of the charter, a notice of violation issued by the department pursuant to this section shall not be subject to review by the board of standards and appeals.
Irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. If they're breaking the law, report them. If the city agencies don't react, tell it to the press.
paint over everything