|
|
|
||||||
|
 Perhaps you have noticed that the Charlottesville Transit System is now taking ads on their buses. According to Tim Brazil (electronic mail, November 25, 2003), the advertising rates are as follows: Driver Side-(30" x 108") $300.00/Month The exterior displays reach car trafic. The interior target bus passengers. Production charges are additional. Art is subject to CTS approval. If you have any questions about the rate structure, call (804-748-2938). "Charlottesville Transit Service is engaged in commerce as a provider of convenient, pleasant inexpensive bus transportation service. The advertising space located inside the bus, on the exterior of the bus, on bus shelters and/or on bus benches constitutes part of this commercial venture, and is intended to be a nonpublic forum. To that end, CTS, acting in a proprietary capacity to manage this commercial venture, has adopted the CTS Ad Policy to further the following interests: (1) To maximize revenue generated through the sale of advertisements as described above; (2) To facilitate a sustainable stream of revenue by securing long-term commercial advertising contracts; (3) To minimize the appearance of favoritism and the risk of imposing upon a captive audience; (4) To maintain a position of neutrality on political and religious issues; and (5) To reduce risk of violence to bus passengers... Ads are reviewed by the Director of Public Works pursuant to the CTS Ad Policy. (The Director of Public Works has been designated by the City Manager to review ads.) If an advertiser disagrees with the determination of the Director of Public Works, he or she may appeal to the City Manager as provided in the CTS Ad Policy... The CTS Ad Policy allows only commercial advertising, and does not allow political advertising that is non commercial. [The determination about whether an ad is commercial] ultimately would depend upon factors such as the appearance of the advertisement, the primary purpose of the advertisement, whether the advertisement refers to a good or service, and the economic motivation of the advertiser. Regarding concerns about free speech, you may be interested to know that similar policies limiting bus ads to commercial speech have been upheld under legal challenge. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a city or transit authority may limit interior bus ads to commercial speech exclusively, thereby maintaining a non-public forum. See Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974). Likewise, the Ninth Circuit relied upon Lehman to uphold a policy that restricted ads to commercial advertising on the interior and exterior of buses for similar reasons, namely an interest in maximizing revenue and maintaining a neutral position in religious or political subjects. See Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F 3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1131 (1999)... It is my understanding that there have been two advertisements that were turned down because they were non-commercial in nature (an ad for the Virginia Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control and an ad for the Piedmont Housing Alliance).
An ad for pawn shops also was turned down pursuant to paragraph 8 of the CTS Ad Policy, which provides: There shall be no advertisements for X-rated movies, sexually oriented businesses, adult bookstores, escort services, massage parlors, pawn shops, tattoo parlors or check cashing services. The purpose of this policy is to help increase CTS ad revenues by maintaining a certain caliber and consumer friendliness of the businesses advertising. A similar policy was recently upheld on appeal in Uptown Pawn v. City of Hollywood, No. 02-15350, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 14321 (11th Cir 2003)" (Renee Knake, Assistant City Attorney, Fax, December 2, 2003) WINA Radio *You may wonder, as did we, how the Lottery may advertise while the ABC Stores may not? The answer is, the Lottery was considered commercial, since the ad was specifically for the sale of tickets. Editor's Note: In the interest of fairness in journalism, it should be noted that George Loper, editor of this website, is a member of the board of the Piedmont Housing Alliance. For more on advertising on buses, see Bunker Mentality, Archdiocese of Washington Hits Metro Ads About Condoms, Using NYC Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's Good Name, MTA Rejects 'Staphangers' Ad, Fairfax County Considers Bus Ads and Marijuana Ad on Washington D.C. Metro Angers Oklahoma Lawmaker. See also, Advertising in Subway Stations. For letters to the editor, see Alex
Gulotta's Comments About CTS Policy About Ads on Buses.
|
