Imagine we went to Disney High School instead of New Trier High School. Disney HS was in Xerox, Illinois instead of Winnetka, Illinois. Instead of Elder Beach, it's McDonalds Beach. Instead of going to Lincoln Park Zoo, we would go to Starbucks Zoo. Instead of going to Comisky Park, we would go to US Cellular Field. Oh wait, that already happened.
In my research for junior theme, I read about an interesting phenomenon going around. Cities and public places are taking in private sponsors. Although it may seem odd, it's actually happening. Clark, Texas, a town of 125, changed their name to Dish, Texas. They did this in exchange for a decade of free cable TV.
Ocean City, Maryland has Coke and Panama Jack as its official drink and sun block, with exclusive marketing rights on its beaches.
LA has Coke as the exclusive soft drink provider. Ford is the official vehicle of LA county beaches. Speedo is the official swimwear sponsor.
NYC and Indianapolis have corporate sponsors for their parks.
Milwaukee's convention center is named Midwest Express.
Vienna Beef is the official hot dog of the Chicago Park District.
While all of these are troubling, the biggest example of this is Sacramento. The city hired a consulting firm that suggested "a wide-ranging corporate sponsorship program involving all city departments" The plan calls for sponsorship partners with rental cars, ice cream, food suppliers for police and fire departments and the convention center, film, delivery service, coffee, gear for park and recreation staff, software, an official computer of Sacramento, and official security company. Now obviously people are bound to think the idea is great. Put up with some advertisements, and the city gains more revenue. In reality, "the potential income stream will be, at most, little more than 1 percent of Sacramento's $451 million annual budget."
But here's the real problem: Do people really want corporate sponsors in public places? And what will motivate people to pay taxes if corporate sponsors could just pick up the bill? "Bergeron, a director of Citizens for Public Priorities, a local network opposing the Sacramento proposal, argues the sponsorship arrangement 'will blur the lines between public and corporate spaces and functions, between what the public pays for and what the corporations pay for.'"
What's worse than that, the city will almost become slaves to the corporations. It will seem as though city employees are working for the corporation, not the city. "It will be in the interest of every city employee to see that the program continues and that the sponsors prosper. Loss of sponsorship money could mean city job losses."
But the biggest issue is the power the city of Sacramento holds. If they are using corporate sponsors, their agendas could change and they could be influenced. "Another concern is that corporate sponsors will exercise undue influence over government. 'The city also has a role as law enforcer and business regulator,' notes Bergeron. 'This role is inherently compromised when the city is taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from businesses.'"
In my research for junior theme, I read about an interesting phenomenon going around. Cities and public places are taking in private sponsors. Although it may seem odd, it's actually happening. Clark, Texas, a town of 125, changed their name to Dish, Texas. They did this in exchange for a decade of free cable TV.
Ocean City, Maryland has Coke and Panama Jack as its official drink and sun block, with exclusive marketing rights on its beaches.
LA has Coke as the exclusive soft drink provider. Ford is the official vehicle of LA county beaches. Speedo is the official swimwear sponsor.
NYC and Indianapolis have corporate sponsors for their parks.
Milwaukee's convention center is named Midwest Express.
Vienna Beef is the official hot dog of the Chicago Park District.
While all of these are troubling, the biggest example of this is Sacramento. The city hired a consulting firm that suggested "a wide-ranging corporate sponsorship program involving all city departments" The plan calls for sponsorship partners with rental cars, ice cream, food suppliers for police and fire departments and the convention center, film, delivery service, coffee, gear for park and recreation staff, software, an official computer of Sacramento, and official security company. Now obviously people are bound to think the idea is great. Put up with some advertisements, and the city gains more revenue. In reality, "the potential income stream will be, at most, little more than 1 percent of Sacramento's $451 million annual budget."
But here's the real problem: Do people really want corporate sponsors in public places? And what will motivate people to pay taxes if corporate sponsors could just pick up the bill? "Bergeron, a director of Citizens for Public Priorities, a local network opposing the Sacramento proposal, argues the sponsorship arrangement 'will blur the lines between public and corporate spaces and functions, between what the public pays for and what the corporations pay for.'"
What's worse than that, the city will almost become slaves to the corporations. It will seem as though city employees are working for the corporation, not the city. "It will be in the interest of every city employee to see that the program continues and that the sponsors prosper. Loss of sponsorship money could mean city job losses."
But the biggest issue is the power the city of Sacramento holds. If they are using corporate sponsors, their agendas could change and they could be influenced. "Another concern is that corporate sponsors will exercise undue influence over government. 'The city also has a role as law enforcer and business regulator,' notes Bergeron. 'This role is inherently compromised when the city is taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from businesses.'"
No comments:
Post a Comment